FLOWERS VS. SCOTT (PATERNITY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

In consolidated appeals concerning a child born out of wedlock, the court affirmed both the dismissal of the stepfather's adoption petition and the denial of the mother's petition to terminate the natural father's parental rights. In No. 6514, because the natural father had established the parent-child relationship under NRS 41.530, and because the proposed adoption had not been completed before the effective date of Stats. Nev. 1971, ch. 412 (eff. Apr. 22, 1971), the new law required the father's consent to the adoption; lacking that consent, dismissal of the adoption petition was proper. In No. 6297, where the father had established paternity under NRS 41.530 and moved to modify the judgment to provide for visitation and support, and the mother petitioned to terminate his parental rights, the court's grant of modification and denial of the termination petition were supported by substantial evidence and affirmed.

In plain language

These consolidated appeals concerned a six-year-old boy, Allen, born out of wedlock to Anita (who later married John Flowers) and Alfred Scott. John Flowers, Anita's husband, petitioned to adopt Allen. But before that petition was filed, Alfred - the natural father - had gone to court and obtained a formal declaration that he was Allen's father, and the court had denied Anita's petition to end Alfred's parental rights. Because Alfred's paternity had been established and he had not consented, he moved to dismiss the stepfather's adoption petition, and the trial court dismissed the adoption. On appeal (Case No. 6514), the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed that dismissal: under a 1971 statute that took effect before the adoption was completed, if the father of a child born out of wedlock has established his parental rights under NRS 41.530, his consent to the adoption is required - and Alfred had not consented. In the companion appeal (Case No. 6297), Anita had appealed the trial court's decision granting Alfred visitation and support rights and denying her petition to terminate his parental rights; the Court found substantial evidence supported those rulings and affirmed them as well.