IN RE: the Adoption of Z.D.L.; (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] B.L. (“Father”) appeals the trial court's order granting P.B.’s (“Stepfather”) petition to adopt Father's fifteen-year-old son, Z.L. (“Z.L.”). Father specifically argues that the trial court's order granting Stepfather's petition to adopt Z.L. is clearly erroneous. Concluding that the trial court's order is not clearly erroneous, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether the trial court's order granting Stepfather's petition to adopt Z.L. is clearly erroneous.

Facts

[3] Father and S.B. (“Mother”) (collectively “Parents”) are the parents of Z.L., who was born in December 2010. Parents, who were not married, were no longer dating at the time of Z.L.’s birth. Father, who was seventeen years old at the time of Z.L.’s birth, was at the hospital when Z.L. was born and signed a paternity affidavit.

[4] Two weeks later, Father visited Z.L. for the first time at Mother's home. The visit lasted only fifteen minutes. Later that day, Mother took Z.L. to Father's mother's (“paternal grandmother”) home for a visit. At some point, Mother and Father began arguing, and, as Mother and Z.L. were leaving paternal grandmother's home, Father attempted “to yank” Z.L.’s car seat out of Mother's hands while Z.L. was in the car seat. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 36). Mother was eventually able to secure Z.L.’s car seat in her car, but before she had the chance to shut the car's passenger door, Father “brought the door off the hinges” and broke it. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 50). As a result of Father's actions, Mother obtained a protective order prohibiting Father from contacting both Mother and Z.L.

[5] In January 2012, Father visited Z.L. at Mother's home shortly after Z.L.’s first birthday. During the visit, Father became angry when Z.L. started crying while he was sitting on Father's lap. Father pushed Z.L. off his lap, began shouting profanities, and stormed out of Mother's home. This was Father's last visit with Z.L.

[6] In 2016, when Z.L. was five years old, Mother began dating Stepfather, and, in December 2016, Stepfather moved into Mother's home. Mother and Stepfather married in February 2019. In 2021 or 2022, Z.L. approached Stepfather and asked Stepfather to adopt him. Stepfather was not immediately able to follow through with Z.L.’s request to adopt him because Stepfather needed to save money to pay for an attorney to file the adoption paperwork.

[7] In December 2024, Father, who had been incarcerated multiple times over the years since Z.L.’s birth and who had not seen or contacted then thirteen-year-old Z.L. in twelve years, sent Z.L. some social media messages. In these messages, Father told Z.L. that he was Z.L.’s father, that he had two tattoos with Z.L.’s name, and that he loved Z.L. Z.L. told Mother about the messages, and Mother asked Z.L. if he wanted to speak with or meet Father. Z.L. told Mother that he did not want to do either one. Z.L. subsequently sent Father the following social media message: “[L]eave me alone. [B]ye[.]” (Ex. Vol. 3 at 48). One month later, in January 2025, Father was convicted of Level 6 felony domestic battery for an incident that did not involve Mother or Z.L.

[8] Thereafter, in April 2025, Stepfather filed a petition to adopt Z.L. In the petition, Stepfather averred that Father's consent to the adoption was not required because Father had failed, without justifiable cause, to communicate significantly with Z.L. for more than one year and that Father had failed to provide for Z.L.’s care and support, when able to do so, for more than one year. Stepfather further averred that the proposed adoption was in Z.L.’s best interests. In addition, Stepfather attached Mother's written consent to the adoption to his petition.

[9] The trial court held a two-day hearing on the adoption petition in December 2025 and January 2026. During the hearing, the trial court heard the facts as set forth above. In addition, Stepfather testified that he lives with Mother, fifteen-year-old Z.L., Mother's fourteen-year-old son from a previous relationship, Mother's eleven-year-old daughter from a previous relationship, and Stepfather and Mother's six-year-old son. Stepfather further testified that he is the primary financial provider for his family and that he also provides health insurance for his family through his job. In addition, Stepfather testified that he has a good relationship with Z.L. and that he supports Z.L.’s education and extracurricular activities, including basketball and track.

[10] Mother testified that it was in Z.L.’s best interests for Stepfather to adopt him. In addition, she testified that Father had never contributed financially to Z.L.’s upbringing. Mother further testified that Stepfather had been “a constant role model[,]” a provider, and a father figure. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 190). According to Mother, it was “remarkable that someone ․ c[ould] just step into somebody's life [and] c[ould] just take a role and go with it.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 190-91). In addition, Z.L. testified and asked the trial court to grant Stepfather's petition to adopt him. He further testified that it was in his best interests for Stepfather to adopt him.

[11] Lastly, Father testified and acknowledged that since Z.L.’s birth, Father had been incarcerated multiple times. He also acknowledged that, at the time of the hearing, he was on home detention for the 2025 Level 6 felony domestic battery conviction. In addition, Father testified that he was a changed person and that he would like to impart lessons that he had learned in life to Z.L. According to Father, he was “just a father trying to get his son and not lose his son.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 146-47).

[12] At the end of the hearing, the trial court stated as follows:

․ [S]ince about the age of five or six, [Stepfather] has been the constant father figure in [Z.L.’s] life. They have a good relationship together. [Stepfather] is providing for [Z.L.] financially. He's supportive of [Z.L.’s] education and his extracurricular activities. They appear by all intents and purposes to have a good relationship. [Z.L.] is an average student. But he is respectful, and he's well-spoken and obviously intelligent enough to determine, to come in here and testify about what his desires are. He requests that the petition be granted. He believes that the adoption is in [his] best interest. The Mother believes that the adoption is in [Z.L.]’s best interest․ And the Court finds that the adoption is in [Z.L.]’s best interest and should be granted[.]

(Tr. Vol. 2 at 202-03). At the end of January 2026, the trial court issued a written order granting Stepfather's petition to adopt Z.L.

[13] Father now appeals.

Decision

[14] Father argues that the trial court's order granting Stepfather's petition to adopt Z.L. is clearly erroneous. We disagree.

[15] At the outset, we note that Stepfather has failed to file an appellee's brief. When an appellee fails to submit a brief, we need not undertake the burden of developing an argument for him. J.H. v. S.S., 93 N.E.3d 1137, 1140 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). Applying a less stringent standard of review, we may reverse the trial court if the appellant can establish prima facie error. Id. However, we may in our discretion decide the case on the merits. Id. We choose to exercise our discretion in this case. See id.

[16] When reviewing the trial court's ruling in an adoption proceeding, we presume that the trial court's decision is correct, and the appellant bears the burden of rebutting this presumption. M.M. v. A.C., 160 N.E.3d 1133, 1135 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). We generally give considerable deference to the trial court's decision in family law matters because the trial court is in the best position to judge the facts, determine witness credibility, get a feel for the family dynamics, and get a sense of a parent and the parent's relationship with his child. Id.

[17] We will not disturb the trial court's decision unless the evidence leads to one conclusion and the trial court reached an opposite conclusion. Id. The trial court's findings and judgment will be set aside only if they are clearly erroneous. Id. A judgment is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence supporting the findings or the findings fail to support the judgment. Id. We will neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of the witnesses. Id. Rather, we will examine only the evidence most favorable to the trial court's decision. Id.

[18] Father's sole contention is that the trial court erred in finding that adoption was in Z.L.’s best interests. The primary concern in every adoption proceeding is the best interests of the child. In re Adoption of M.S., 10 N.E.3d 1272, 1281 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). The adoption statute does not provide guidance for which factors to consider when determining the best interests of the child in an adoption proceeding, but we have noted that there are strong similarities between the adoption statute and the termination of parental rights statute in this respect. Id. In termination cases, we have held that the trial court is required to look to the totality of the evidence to determine the child's best interests. Id. Relevant factors include, among others, a parent's historical and current inability to provide a suitable environment for the child and the child's need for permanence and stability. Id.

[19] Here, our review of the record reveals that at the time of the December 2025 and January 2026 hearings, Father, who had been incarcerated multiple times since Z.L.’s birth, was on home detention for a Level 6 felony domestic battery conviction. Further, Father has never financially or otherwise supported fifteen-year-old Z.L., and his last visit with Z.L. was in January 2012 when Z.L. had just turned one year old. On the other hand, Z.L. has a bond with Stepfather, who has financially supported Z.L. since Z.L. was five years old. In addition, Stepfather has supported Z.L's education and his extracurricular activities. Further, both Mother and Z.L. testified that adoption was in Z.L.’s best interests. Simply stated, Stepfather offers Z.L. permanence and stability. In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not err in finding that adoption was in Z.L.’s best interests.

[20] In sum, the trial court was in the best position to judge the facts, determine witness credibility, get a feel for the family dynamics, and get a sense of both Father's and Stepfather's relationships with Z.L. See M.M., 160 N.E.3d at 1135. We will not reweigh the evidence or reassess the credibility of the witnesses. See id. Based on the facts of this case, Father has not met his burden to overcome the presumption that the trial court's decision is correct, and we cannot say that the evidence leads to but one conclusion and the trial court reached the opposite conclusion. Concluding that the trial court did not err in granting Stepfather's petition to adopt Z.L., we affirm the trial court's judgment. See K.H. v. M.M., 151 N.E.3d 1259, 1269 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (affirming the trial court's grant of a decree of adoption), trans. denied.

[21] Affirmed.

Pyle, Judge.

May, J., and Scheele, J., concur.