Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 31-19-9-2 (2026)

Execution and acknowledgment of consent; timing; restrictions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 2. (a) The consent to adoption may be executed or acknowledged at any time after the birth of the child, either in the presence of:

(1) the court, in person or by video conferencing;

(2) a notary public or other person authorized to take acknowledgments; or

(3) an authorized agent of:

(A) the department; or

(B) a licensed child placing agency.

     (b) The child's mother may not execute a consent to adoption before the birth of the child.

     (c) The child's father may execute a consent to adoption before the birth of the child if the consent to adoption:

(1) is in writing;

(2) is signed by the child's father in the presence of a notary public; and

(3) contains an acknowledgment that:

(A) the consent to adoption is irrevocable; and

(B) the child's father will not receive notice of the adoption proceedings.

     (d) A child's father who consents to the adoption of the child under subsection (c) may not challenge or contest the child's adoption.

     (e) Except as provided in subsection (f) or (g), a person who executes a written consent to the adoption of a child may not execute a second or subsequent written consent to have another person adopt the child unless one (1) or more of the following apply:

(1) Each original petitioner provides a written statement that the petitioner is not adopting the child.

(2) The person consenting to the adoption has been permitted to withdraw the first consent to adoption under IC 31-19-10.

(3) The court dismisses the petition for adoption filed by the original petitioner or petitioners for adoption based upon a showing, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is not in the best interests of the child that the petition for adoption be granted.

(4) The court denies the petition to adopt the child filed by the original petitioner or petitioners for adoption.

     (f) The department may execute more than one (1) written consent to the adoption of a child if the department determines that the execution of more than one (1) written consent is in the best interests of the child.

     (g) The parents of a child who is a ward of the department may execute a second or subsequent consent if:

(1) the court with jurisdiction over the child in need of services determines that adoption by the person to whom consents were originally signed is not in the child's best interest; or

(2) if the child's placement with the person who has petitioned or intends to petition to adopt the child is disrupted.

[Pre-1997 Recodification Citation: 31-3-1-6(d).]

As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.11. Amended by P.L.130-2005, SEC.4; P.L.145-2006, SEC.251; P.L.21-2010, SEC.5; P.L.162-2011, SEC.15; P.L.128-2012, SEC.55; P.L.89-2023, SEC.3.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2002–2024 · leading case: In Re the Adoption of A.S. Ex Rel. M.L.S., 912 N.E.2d 840 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
In Re the Adoption of A.S. Ex Rel. M.L.S., 912 N.E.2d 840 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “10 Ind.Code § 31-19-9-2. A consent to adoption that does not identify a specific petitioner or petitioners for adoption, also called a "blanket" or general consent, is valid if the consent contains a statement, by the person consenting to adoption, that said person voluntarily…”
In Re Adoption of Infant Child Baxter, 799 N.E.2d 1057 (Ind. 2003). · cites it 8× “However, the court also found that the signatures of the biological parents and maternal grandparents had not been executed in the presence of a notary public as required by Ind.Code § 31-19-9-2 and that, under Ind.”
In Re Adoption of MLL, 810 N.E.2d 1088 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Indiana Code Section 31-19-9-2 provides in relevant part that a consent to adoption "may be executed at any time after the birth of the child either in the presence of: (1) the court; [or] (2) a notary public.”
In Re Adoption of Njg, 891 N.E.2d 60 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 14× “Finding that Erikka's consent was not valid because it was given before the child was born and did not follow the execution requirements of Indiana Code section 31-19-9-2, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.”
In Re the Adoption of X.J.A., 166 P.3d 396 (Kan. 2007). · cites it 2× “2d at 1062 (quoting Ind.Code § 31-19-9-2). Considering this language, the court found that "the intent of the statute, which is designed to provide an equitable adoption procedure by protecting the rights of the adoptive parents and the child as well as those of the biological…”
Robbins v. Baxter, 799 N.E.2d 1057 (Ind. 2003). · cites it 8× “However, the court also found that the signatures of the biological parents and maternal grandparents had not been executed in the presence of a notary public as required by Ind.Code § 31-19-9-2 and that, under Ind.”
Adoption of N.W.R. M.R. v. R.B. & R.B., & Indiana Dept. of Child Servs., 971 N.E.2d 110 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “Under Indiana Code Section 31-19-9-2(3), a person who executed a written consent may not execute a subsequent consent to have another person adopt the child unless one or more of the circumstances set out in the statute applies.”
In Re Adoption of Infant Child Baxter, 778 N.E.2d 417 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 5× “Code § 31-3-1-6, was later recodified as Ind.Code § 31-19-9-2. [8] The birth mother in H.”
Gillis v. Jackson, 891 N.E.2d 60 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 12× “Finding that Erikka’s consent was not valid because it was given before the child was born and did not follow the execution requirements of Indiana Code section 31-19-9-2, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.”
In Re the Adoption of M.P.S., Jr. A.S. v. M.P.S., Sr., M.S., & An.S., 963 N.E.2d 625 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “Indiana Code Section 31-19-9-2 provides that a consent to adoption may be executed at any time after the birth of the child, in the presence of the court, a notary public, or an authorized agent of the DCS or a licensed child placement agency.”
Robbins v. Baxter, 778 N.E.2d 417 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 5× “Code § 31-3-1-6, was later recodified as Ind.Code § 31-19-9-2. . The birth mother in H.”
In Re Adoption of MPS, Jr., 963 N.E.2d 625 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “Indiana Code Section 31-19-9-2 provides that a consent to adoption may be executed at any time after the birth of the child, in the presence of the court, a notary public, or an authorized agent of the DCS or a licensed child placement agency.”
— Ind. Code § 31-19-9-2(3) — 1 case
Adoption of N.W.R. M.R. v. R.B. & R.B., & Indiana Dept. of Child Servs., 971 N.E.2d 110 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “Under Indiana Code Section 31-19-9-2(3), a person who executed a written consent may not execute a subsequent consent to have another person adopt the child unless one or more of the circumstances set out in the statute applies.”
— Ind. Code § 31-19-9-2(a) — 2 cases
In Re Adoption of Njg, 891 N.E.2d 60 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “Finding that Erikka's consent was not valid because it was given before the child was born and did not follow the execution requirements of Indiana Code section 31-19-9-2, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.”
Gillis v. Jackson, 891 N.E.2d 60 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “Finding that Erikka’s consent was not valid because it was given before the child was born and did not follow the execution requirements of Indiana Code section 31-19-9-2, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.”
— Ind. Code § 31-19-9-2(b) — 3 cases
In Re the Adoption of A.S. Ex Rel. M.L.S., 912 N.E.2d 840 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “10 Ind.Code § 31-19-9-2. A consent to adoption that does not identify a specific petitioner or petitioners for adoption, also called a "blanket" or general consent, is valid if the consent contains a statement, by the person consenting to adoption, that said person voluntarily…”
In Re Adoption of Njg, 891 N.E.2d 60 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “Finding that Erikka's consent was not valid because it was given before the child was born and did not follow the execution requirements of Indiana Code section 31-19-9-2, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.”
Gillis v. Jackson, 891 N.E.2d 60 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “Finding that Erikka’s consent was not valid because it was given before the child was born and did not follow the execution requirements of Indiana Code section 31-19-9-2, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.