In the Matter of J.J.J., A Minor
Alaska Supreme Court
718 P.2d 948 (1986)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
J.J.J.’s biological parents were divorced in May 1982, and B.J., the biological mother, was granted custody. J.B. (plaintiff), the biological father, was ordered to pay child support. J.B. made no support payments until August 1982, when he made a single, voluntary payment after being contacted by the Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA). From September 1982 through March 1983, J.B. made no payments. In April and May 1983, CSEA garnished J.B.’s wages toward support arrears. J.B. paid nothing between May and October 1983. In August 1983, B.J. and S.J. (defendant), the stepfather, advised J.B. that S.J. planned to adopt J.J.J. In November 1983, J.B. made a lump-sum payment toward support arrears after being contacted by CSEA. Between May 1982 and December 1983, J.B. had practically no contact with J.J.J., but S.J. developed a close, parental relationship with J.J.J. In December 1983, S.J. filed a petition to adopt J.J.J., and J.B. refused to consent. The probate master found that J.B.’s consent was not required because he had substantially and unjustifiably failed to support J.J.J. for a period of at least one year. The probate master also found that the adoption was not in J.J.J.’s best interest because he wanted a relationship with J.B. The superior court affirmed the finding as to J.B.’s consent but reversed the finding on the child’s best interests and directed that the adoption should proceed but that J.B. should receive visitation rights. This expedited appeal followed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Moore, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.