Abernathy v. Baby Boy - 313 S.C. 27, 437 S.E.2d 25 (1993)

Rule:

An unwed father is entitled to constitutional protection of his relationship with his child not only when he meets the literal requirements of S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-1690(A)(5)(b), but also when he undertakes sufficient prompt and good faith efforts to assume parental responsibility and to comply with the statute. To mandate strict compliance with § 20-7-1690(A)(5)(b) would make an unwed father's right to withhold his consent to adoption dependent upon the whim of the unwed mother. 

Facts:

This is an action for termination of parental rights and adoption of a child conceived out of wedlock by respondent Mitchell F. Calvert (Mitchell) and appellant Julie Ayers (Julie). Mitchell and Julie were on active duty in the Navy when they commenced a casual sexual relationship in April 1991. Mitchell, who had orders for sea duty with the Navy, turned over his car and access to his bank account to the then pregnant Julie. Julie put the car in storage and withdrew only a small amount of money. After Mitchell’s return from sea duty, Julie rebuffed his advances, rejected his marriage proposal, and avoided contact with him. Julie consented to the child's placement with the parents, and an adoption action was commenced. Mitchell learned of the birth and pending adoption and intervened. The trial court found that Mitchell possessed a right to refuse consent to the proposed adoption of his child and granted custody of the child to him. Julie and the prospective parents appealed.

Issue:

Was Mitchell entitled to constitutional protection of his relationship with his child?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court found that Mitchell’s consent to the adoption was required despite his failure to comply with the literal requirements of S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-1690(A)(5)(b) (Supp. 1992). The court held that an unwed father was entitled to constitutional protection of his relationship with his child not only when he met the literal requirements of § 20-7-1690(A)(5)(b), but also when he undertook sufficient prompt and good faith efforts to assume parental responsibility and to comply with the statute. The court concluded that, by his actions, Mitchell timely demonstrated a willingness to develop a full custodial relationship with his child.