Eberhardt, Judge.
If there is any evidence to support the findings of the trial court, we must affirm. West v. West, 228 Ga. 397, 398 (185 SE2d 763). The judge, sitting without a jury as the trior of factual issues, is the judge of the credibility of the witnesses, including parties. Mustang Transportation, Inc. v. W. W. Lowe & Sons, 123 Ga. App. 350 (3) (181 SE2d 85). On appeal the evidence is to be construed to uphold rather than to destroy the findings and judgment. Associated Mutuals v. Pope Lumber Co., 200 Ga. 487, 496 (37 SE2d 393).
The sole enumeration of error is that the adoption was granted without the written consent of the child’s father, and that there was no allegation or sufficient evidence to show an abandonment of the child by its father.
The adoption law of this State, found in Code Ann Ch. 74-4, provides by §74-403 that "Except as otherwise specified in the following subsections, no adoption shall be permitted except with the written consent of the living parents of the child.” Concededly the father of this child has not consented. However, by Code Ann. § 74-403 (2) it is provided that: "Where a decree has been entered by a superior court ... ordering a parent to support a child and such [8]*8parent has wantonly and wilfully failed to comply with the order for a period of 12 months or longer, the consent of such parent shall not be required and the consent of the other parent alone shall suffice . . ,”1
It was held in Sale v. Leachman, 218 Ga. 834 (131 SE2d 185), reversing Sale v. Leachman, 106 Ga. App. 879 (129 SE2d 88), that the 12 months period referred to in this section is the period next preceding the filing of the petition for adoption. For other discussion of this provision see Carpenter v. Forshee, 103 Ga. App. 758 (3) (120 SE2d 786).
Thus the question here is whether there is any evidence in this record to support the findings of the trial court that during this period the father did wantonly and wilfully fail to support the child as ordered to do by the decree. We think there is. Under the uncontradicted evidence the father obtained employment in March, 1970, and has worked regularly since that time. While the amount of his earnings was not shown, he has at no time contended that his earnings were not sufficient in amount to enable him to make the payments if he had chosen to do so. Indeed, he now says that from his earnings he has saved up enough and has it invested in United States Savings Bonds to pay in full the arrearages. This evidence was sufficient in and of itself to justify the court to infer that the failure to make the payments for a period of a year before the adoption proceeding was filed was wilful and wanton, and the finding of wilfulness and wantonness is amply supported. It meets the test spelled out in Carpenter v. Forshee, 103 Ga. App. 758, 773, supra, where we held that '"wantonly and wil[9]*9fully’ means without reasonable excuse, with a conscious disregard of duty, willingly, voluntarily, and intentionally.”
Appellant relies heavily upon such cases as Glendinning v. McComas, 188 Ga. 345 (3 SE2d 562), affirming McComas v. Glendinning, 59 Ga. App. 234 (200 SE 304), Johnson v. Strickland, 88 Ga. App. 281 (76 SE2d 533), and Wheeler v. Little, 113 Ga. App. 106 (147 SE2d 352), but these cases are inapposite. As to Glendinning and Johnson, it must be observed that the provision of Code Ann. § 74-403 (2), set out above, was not in the-law when they were decided. This provision was incorporated into the Code section by an amendment found in Ga. L. 1950, p. 289. It made a substantial change in the law as to what must be shown to obviate the necessity of obtaining the consent of the father who, under a decree of court, is required to pay support for the child and who wantonly and wilfully fails to do so. The results in Glendinning and Johnson might very well have been different if the law had been as it now stands when they were decided. It follows, of course, that if the provision included by the 1950 amendment had not been added it would still be necessary to show abandonment as defined in Glendinning and Johnson; or, if the father had been in compliance with the decree for child support it would be necessary to show that kind of abandonment, which is one of the grounds excusing the obtaining of consent listed at the opening of Code Ann. § 74-403 (2) and which was there before the 1950 amendment. The factual situation in Wheeler was altogether different, where the aunt of a child sought to adopt it. Its mother was dead, and the father had left the child to live with the aunt. He had failed to contribute to the support of the child, but there was no decree of court directing him to do so.
Appellant contends that he had, on three occasions in 1970 and on one occasion in 1971, offered to make partial payment of his arrearages in child support under the decree and that she had rejected his offer, saying that she wanted total payment thereof, and that if he should send a part [10]*10payment she would return it. Was this sufficient to bring him in compliance with the decree? We think not.
In the first place, the offers to make partial payment did not amount to a lawful tender, just as the trial court found. "A tender, to be effectual, must be for the full amount due.” Smith v. Pilcher, 130 Ga. 350, 355 (60 SE 1000). Moreover, he conceded in his testimony that he did not, at the time, have the money, but asserts that after the mother’s refusal of his offers he had a payroll deduction instituted for the purchase of United States Savings Bonds and through this method had accumulated an amount sufficient to cover the full amount due. He did not, however, say that he had, at any time, offered to her the bonds or money in an amount sufficient to pay the amount due; only that he was now willing to do so. She was authorized to reject his offers of partial payment.
Even if he had tendered the bonds or money at the time of the hearing it would have been ineffective, for an offer to pay up the arrearages comes too late after the filing of the petition for adoption. In Re Adoption of Eddy (Okla.), 487 P2d 1362. Nor would payment after that time restore the requirement of his written consent to the adoption. In Re Burton’s Adoption, 147 Cal. App. 2d 125 (305 P2d 185); Laslie v. Cole (Tex. Civ. App.), 465 SW2d 811. Rights of the parties are generally fixed as of the time the petition is filed and served.
He admits that he has been continuously employed since March, 1970, and the court found that he had been in position to make the payments of support under the decree since that time, but had not done so. If he could not pay up the arrearages in a manner satisfactory to the mother of the child, he could have started paying support on a current basis at any time, as was done in Sale v. Leachman, 218 Ga. 834, supra; and if he had done so, under the holding in that case, it would have been necessary to obtain his consent for the adoption, or to show an abandonment. But he did not. He does not contend that he has ever tendered payment of the amount for a .current period. He does not [11]*11contend that he could not have paid on a current basis since the beginning of his employment. He has not at any time sought to obtain a change in the provision for support under the decree.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Eberhardt, Judge.
If there is any evidence to support the findings of the trial court, we must affirm. West v. West, 228 Ga. 397, 398 (185 SE2d 763). The judge, sitting without a jury as the trior of factual issues, is the judge of the credibility of the witnesses, including parties. Mustang Transportation, Inc. v. W. W. Lowe & Sons, 123 Ga. App. 350 (3) (181 SE2d 85). On appeal the evidence is to be construed to uphold rather than to destroy the findings and judgment. Associated Mutuals v. Pope Lumber Co., 200 Ga. 487, 496 (37 SE2d 393).
The sole enumeration of error is that the adoption was granted without the written consent of the child’s father, and that there was no allegation or sufficient evidence to show an abandonment of the child by its father.
The adoption law of this State, found in Code Ann Ch. 74-4, provides by §74-403 that "Except as otherwise specified in the following subsections, no adoption shall be permitted except with the written consent of the living parents of the child.” Concededly the father of this child has not consented. However, by Code Ann. § 74-403 (2) it is provided that: "Where a decree has been entered by a superior court ... ordering a parent to support a child and such [8]*8parent has wantonly and wilfully failed to comply with the order for a period of 12 months or longer, the consent of such parent shall not be required and the consent of the other parent alone shall suffice . . ,”1
It was held in Sale v. Leachman, 218 Ga. 834 (131 SE2d 185), reversing Sale v. Leachman, 106 Ga. App. 879 (129 SE2d 88), that the 12 months period referred to in this section is the period next preceding the filing of the petition for adoption. For other discussion of this provision see Carpenter v. Forshee, 103 Ga. App. 758 (3) (120 SE2d 786).
Thus the question here is whether there is any evidence in this record to support the findings of the trial court that during this period the father did wantonly and wilfully fail to support the child as ordered to do by the decree. We think there is. Under the uncontradicted evidence the father obtained employment in March, 1970, and has worked regularly since that time. While the amount of his earnings was not shown, he has at no time contended that his earnings were not sufficient in amount to enable him to make the payments if he had chosen to do so. Indeed, he now says that from his earnings he has saved up enough and has it invested in United States Savings Bonds to pay in full the arrearages. This evidence was sufficient in and of itself to justify the court to infer that the failure to make the payments for a period of a year before the adoption proceeding was filed was wilful and wanton, and the finding of wilfulness and wantonness is amply supported. It meets the test spelled out in Carpenter v. Forshee, 103 Ga. App. 758, 773, supra, where we held that '"wantonly and wil[9]*9fully’ means without reasonable excuse, with a conscious disregard of duty, willingly, voluntarily, and intentionally.”
Appellant relies heavily upon such cases as Glendinning v. McComas, 188 Ga. 345 (3 SE2d 562), affirming McComas v. Glendinning, 59 Ga. App. 234 (200 SE 304), Johnson v. Strickland, 88 Ga. App. 281 (76 SE2d 533), and Wheeler v. Little, 113 Ga. App. 106 (147 SE2d 352), but these cases are inapposite. As to Glendinning and Johnson, it must be observed that the provision of Code Ann. § 74-403 (2), set out above, was not in the-law when they were decided. This provision was incorporated into the Code section by an amendment found in Ga. L. 1950, p. 289. It made a substantial change in the law as to what must be shown to obviate the necessity of obtaining the consent of the father who, under a decree of court, is required to pay support for the child and who wantonly and wilfully fails to do so. The results in Glendinning and Johnson might very well have been different if the law had been as it now stands when they were decided. It follows, of course, that if the provision included by the 1950 amendment had not been added it would still be necessary to show abandonment as defined in Glendinning and Johnson; or, if the father had been in compliance with the decree for child support it would be necessary to show that kind of abandonment, which is one of the grounds excusing the obtaining of consent listed at the opening of Code Ann. § 74-403 (2) and which was there before the 1950 amendment. The factual situation in Wheeler was altogether different, where the aunt of a child sought to adopt it. Its mother was dead, and the father had left the child to live with the aunt. He had failed to contribute to the support of the child, but there was no decree of court directing him to do so.
Appellant contends that he had, on three occasions in 1970 and on one occasion in 1971, offered to make partial payment of his arrearages in child support under the decree and that she had rejected his offer, saying that she wanted total payment thereof, and that if he should send a part [10]*10payment she would return it. Was this sufficient to bring him in compliance with the decree? We think not.
In the first place, the offers to make partial payment did not amount to a lawful tender, just as the trial court found. "A tender, to be effectual, must be for the full amount due.” Smith v. Pilcher, 130 Ga. 350, 355 (60 SE 1000). Moreover, he conceded in his testimony that he did not, at the time, have the money, but asserts that after the mother’s refusal of his offers he had a payroll deduction instituted for the purchase of United States Savings Bonds and through this method had accumulated an amount sufficient to cover the full amount due. He did not, however, say that he had, at any time, offered to her the bonds or money in an amount sufficient to pay the amount due; only that he was now willing to do so. She was authorized to reject his offers of partial payment.
Even if he had tendered the bonds or money at the time of the hearing it would have been ineffective, for an offer to pay up the arrearages comes too late after the filing of the petition for adoption. In Re Adoption of Eddy (Okla.), 487 P2d 1362. Nor would payment after that time restore the requirement of his written consent to the adoption. In Re Burton’s Adoption, 147 Cal. App. 2d 125 (305 P2d 185); Laslie v. Cole (Tex. Civ. App.), 465 SW2d 811. Rights of the parties are generally fixed as of the time the petition is filed and served.
He admits that he has been continuously employed since March, 1970, and the court found that he had been in position to make the payments of support under the decree since that time, but had not done so. If he could not pay up the arrearages in a manner satisfactory to the mother of the child, he could have started paying support on a current basis at any time, as was done in Sale v. Leachman, 218 Ga. 834, supra; and if he had done so, under the holding in that case, it would have been necessary to obtain his consent for the adoption, or to show an abandonment. But he did not. He does not contend that he has ever tendered payment of the amount for a .current period. He does not [11]*11contend that he could not have paid on a current basis since the beginning of his employment. He has not at any time sought to obtain a change in the provision for support under the decree. Indeed, he now contends that he has saved up enough money for paying the full amount of the arrearage.
Did the visits of the father to the child and the presentation to him of Christmas gifts and a suit of clothes on one occasion, amount to a compliance with the decree so as to restore the requirement for his written consent to the adoption? The father is not entitled to credit on his alimony or child support obligation under the decree for any voluntary payments directly to the child or for items of food, clothing, etc., which he may have given to him. Fischer v. Fischer, 164 Ga. 81 (5) (137 SE 821); Kirby v. Johnson, 188 Ga. 701 (1, 3) (4 SE2d 643); Swain v. Wells, 210 Ga. 394, 400 (80 SE2d 321); Wills v. Glunts, 222 Ga. 647, 649 (151 SE2d 760); Taylor v. Taylor, 216 Ga. 767, 769 (119 SE2d 571); Creaden v. Krogh, 75 Ga. App. 675, 678 (44 SE2d 136); Christman v. Griffin, 84 Ga. App. 650 (2) (66 SE2d 835). In other states having similar statutes it has been held that such visits and the purchase of toys, bicycles, clothes, and other gifts to the child do not amount to support within the requirements of the decree of the court and thus do not prevent the operation of the statutory provision obviating the necessity for his written consent. In Re Adoption of Greer (Okla.), 463 P2d 677; In Re Adoption of Eddy (Okla.), 487 P2d 1362; In Re Adoption of Oukes, 14 Cal. App. 3d 459 (92 Cal. Rptr. 390). We conclude that this conduct did not amount to a compliance.
It is contended that the evidence as a whole does not reflect any intention on the part of the father to abandon his child or completely to sever the parental relationship with him. The trouble with this is that whatever purpose he may have had in his own mind about the matter, the statute lays down a rule, harsh though it may be, under which the necessity of his consent is dispensed with when he wantonly and wilfully fails to comply with the court decree for [12]*12his support of the child, and the court has found that condition to have obtained. Under these circumstances the statute does not require that it be shown that the father has abandoned his child; it makes no reference to abandonment in this provision. It is simply required that it be shown that he has, for a period of 12 months, wantonly and wilfully failed to make the support payments. This may be said to amount to a kind of an abandonment, though the father denies any intention that it do so. But it is not necessary that the court find an abandonment to have occurred in any other manner. This is why the holdings of Glendinning and Johnson are not applicable to this situation. He cannot retain the benefits of parental rights and at the same time spurn the burden of parental obligation. The court, in making the support decree, had determined what that obligation should be and how it should be discharged. Instead of doing so, as the court found to be the case, he failed to make a single payment from the time the decree was entered.
Does the fact that the child was not in a destitute condition obviate the requirement of the decree that the father make the support payments? Obviously not. It is not the policy of the law that a father may ignore his obligation to support the child until it becomes destitute. The very purpose of the statute is that he should honor the obligation and make the payments so that the child will not reach that condition.
The evidence here is that the mother had made numerous demands on the father that he make the support payments, and that he had not done so. But even if she had not made the demands, it would not relieve him of the obligation to make the payments.
He also asserts that he has not been afforded his rights of visitation by the child for the summer vacation of 1970 as the decree provided for, but if true, neither does this relieve him of the obligation to make the payments, or change the provision of the statute obviating the necessity for his consent.
[13]*13That the wife had not demanded payment of the support money and the father believed payment to be unnecessary for the child’s support does not justify his failure, nor does his complaint that he was hindered in exercising his visitation rights. In Re Merrill (La. App.), 246 S. 2d 207; In Re Genin (La. App.), 240 S. 2d 46. Cf. Stewart v. Stewart, 217 Ga. 509 (123 SE2d 547); Jagoe v. Jagoe, 183 Ga. 273, 274 (187 SE 874). "[N]o natural parent, regardless of the difficulties he may be experiencing with his former spouse is justified to unilaterally without benefit of court order refuse to pay the amount of support previously ordered by the court. When he chooses this avenue of redress, regardless of his love and affection for the children, he places himself in a position of removing the necessity of his consent to their adoption.” In Re Adoption of Reynard v. Kelly, 252 Ind. 632, 639 (251 NE2d 413).
The states from which we have cited cases have statutes generally similar to ours in this respect. All provided that wilful failure to comply with the decree for 12 months obviates necessity for obtaining the father’s consent. Some provide that the period is the 12 months next preceding the filing of the petition for adoption; others do not. Many states have adopted this provision in their laws regulating the adoption of children. In addition to the cases cited, see In Re Ackenhausen, 244 La. 730 (154 S2d 380); In Re Burton’s Adoption, 147 Cal. App. 125, supra. And see Oregon Rev. Stat. § 109-324. There is evidence supporting the findings and the judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
Bell, C. J., Jordan, P. J., Hall, P. J., Deen, Quillian and Clark, JJ., concur. Pannell and Evans, JJ., dissent.