The Georgia Supreme Court ruled Monday that a couple who has had custody of a 3-year-old Habersham County boy since his birth may resume its efforts to adopt him.
The high court's 6-3 decision reversed a ruling by the state's Court of Appeals that could have led to the biological father gaining custody of the child.
In Monday's 27-page majority decision, the court agreed with the Habersham County Superior Court ruling that the father had abandoned his interest in the child. The opinion was written by Chief Justice Harold D. Melton.
At issue in the case is Joshua Brumbelow, a father who failed to provide assistance to the mother of his child before the birth. The mother placed the child for adoption with a couple who has had custody of the child since then.
Six weeks after the birth, Brumbelow filed a petition in Habersham County Superior Court to legitimate his biological son. Following a hearing, the trial court denied Brumbelow’s petition to legitimate the child on the ground that he had abandoned his “opportunity interest” in developing a parent-child relationship and that denying the petition for legitimation was in the child's best interests.
Brumbelow appealed that decision to the Georgia Court of Appeals, which ruled that while Brumbelow could have done more, he had not done enough to legally constitute abandonment. It sent the case back to Habersham County for court to determine if Brumbelow was a fit parent.
Jeannie Mathenia, the biological mother, and the adoptive parents then appealed to the state Supreme Court, leading to Monday's ruling.
The Georgia Supreme Court has held in other cases that unwed fathers possess an opportunity interest to develop a relationship with their children that is protected by due process of law. The interest, the court has ruled, “begins at conception and endures probably throughout the minority of the child. But it is not indestructible.”
“Indeed, an unwed father’s opportunity interest can be abandoned ‘if not timely pursued," Monday's opinion said. “‘Factors which may support a finding of abandonment include, without limitation, a biological father’s inaction during pregnancy and at birth, a delay in filing a legitimation petition, and a lack of contact with the child.’”
Among the factors in this case, the opinion said, are that the only financial support he offered Mathenia while she was pregnant was to pay for an abortion, which “does not show that he wanted to pursue a relationship with his child” and which “would have ensured that no relationship could ever develop.”
To read the full opinion, visit the Georgia Supreme Court website.
