GARRY MARTINOUS ROBINSON and ANITA JO ROBINSON, Petitioners, FOR THE ADOPTION OF: B.J.R., A Minor Child. WILLIAM PHELAN PATE, Plaintiff,
SHAUNASIE UNIQUE PERKINS, GARRY MARTINOUS ROBINSON, and ANITA JO ROBINSON, Defendants
Heard in the Court of Appeals: September 10, 2014.
As Corrected January 13, 2014.
Appeal by Plaintiff from an order entered 26 August
2013 by Judge Anna F. Foster in Lincoln County District Court, No. 13-SP-70,
Crowe & Davis, P.A., by H. Kent Crowe, for the Plaintiff-Appellant, William Phelan Pate.
Thomas B. Kakassy, for the Third-Party Defendant-Appellees, Garry Martinous Robinson and Anita Jo Robinson.
DILLON, Judge. Judge HUNTER, Robert C. and Judge DAVIS concur.
William Phelan Pate (" Plaintiff" ) appeals from an order adjudicating that his consent to his daughter's adoption was not required. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
Plaintiff and Shaunasie Unique Perkins (" Ms. Perkins" ) dated for about seven months from late 2011 to mid-2012, while both were attending high school and into the summer. The two engaged in sexual intercourse on a number of occasions. At some point during their relationship, Ms. Perkins became pregnant. She informed Plaintiff of her pregnancy.
In August of 2012, their relationship began to deteriorate when Ms. Perkins moved away to attend college and Plaintiff remained in high school.
On 7 January 2013, Ms. Perkins gave birth to a baby girl without informing Plaintiff. She authorized a direct discharge of the child to Garry and Anita Robinson, the prospective adoptive parents, and signed a consent form. The Robinsons took the child home with them the following day.
On 13 January 2013, after discovering that Ms. Perkins had given birth, Plaintiff filed an action for child custody, child support and genetic testing.
On 13 February 2013, the Robinsons filed a petition for adoption. On 21 February 2013, Plaintiff filed an objection to the adoption, contending that as the biological father his consent was required.
On 7 June 2013, the trial court entered an order for genetic testing. In early July of 2013, Plaintiff learned that the results from the testing proved him to be the father of the child.
On 26 August 2013, the trial court entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion to dismiss the adoption proceeding, concluding that Plaintiff's consent was not ...