On March 12, 2026, the Supreme Court of Virginia issued its decision in Perkins v. Howington, addressing a question that may seem unusual at first: if a parent was under a court order not to contact a child, can that same court-ordered period of no contact later satisfy the no-contact requirement of a Virginia adoption statute that allows a case to proceed without that parent’s consent?
In Perkins v. Howington, the answer was yes. The Court upheld a stepparent adoption without the biological mother’s consent, explaining that the no-contact order did not end the analysis. Courts may also consider why that order was entered and whether the parent took meaningful steps to change the situation.
What Virginia Law Requires
In Virginia, a biological parent usually must consent before an adoption can be finalized. But Virginia Code § 63.2-1202(H) creates an exception. Under that statute, consent is not required if a birth parent, without just cause, has neither visited nor contacted the child during the six months immediately before the adoption petition is filed. The adoptive parent must prove that by clear and convincing evidence. The statute also says that child support alone does not count as contact.
That means the court must answer two separate questions:
- Did the parent have any contact with the child during the six months before the adoption petition was filed?
- If not, was there a legally sufficient reason for that lack of contact?
Background of the Case
The child’s parents separated, and child-protective proceedings later began after allegations that the mother used drugs in the child’s presence. The juvenile court found the child had been abused or neglected in the mother’s care based on evidence that included substance use disorder, failed drug screens, admitted intravenous drug use, and track marks. The father was later awarded custody, and in July 2020 the court entered an order stating that the mother was to have no contact or visitation with the child until further court order.
In April 2021, the father and stepmother filed for stepparent adoption. They argued that the mother’s consent was not required because she had gone more than six months without visiting or contacting the child. The mother objected, arguing that she was complying with the no-contact order and had tried to regain visitation.
The circuit court approved the adoption without her consent. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Virginia Supreme Court did as well.
The Six-Month No-Contact Requirement
The Supreme Court said the first part of the statute is straightforward. The question is simply whether the parent visited or contacted the child at all during the six months immediately before the adoption petition was filed. Courts are not supposed to weigh the quality of the contact or broaden that specific inquiry beyond the statutory time period.
Here, the petition was filed on April 13, 2021, so the relevant period ran back to October 13, 2020. It was undisputed that the mother had neither visited nor contacted the child during that time. That meant the no-contact portion of the statute was satisfied.
How Courts Look at “Just Cause”
The more complicated issue was whether the mother had just cause for that lack of contact.
The Supreme Court explained that just cause is not a rigid rule. It is a broader standard that requires the trial court to look at the surrounding facts and circumstances. Once the court sees there was no contact during the six-month period, it must ask why, and then decide whether that reason was justified.
In practical terms, that means a court may look at things like:
- why the no-contact order was entered in the first place
- whether the parent’s own conduct led to the order
- whether the parent acted promptly to try to restore contact
- whether the parent complied with court requirements while trying to do so
The Role of the No-Contact Order
The mother’s main argument was that she was under a court order not to contact the child, so that lack of contact should not be held against her. The Supreme Court said that fact was relevant, but it was not the end of the analysis.
The circuit court was allowed to look at how the no-contact order came about. In this case, the order arose from abuse-and-neglect findings tied to the mother’s substance-abuse issues. Because of that, the trial court was allowed to conclude that the underlying reason for the lack of contact was still the mother’s own conduct.
The Supreme Court also noted that the mother’s efforts to restore contact were mixed. Although she later sought visitation, the record showed that she did not immediately move to set aside the no-contact order when it first came up for review, and she failed to file a bill of particulars the juvenile court had ordered her to provide. The circuit court also heard evidence that her substance-abuse-related problems had continued, including missed or failed drug screens.
Taken together, those facts supported the circuit court’s conclusion that the lack of contact was without just cause. The Supreme Court therefore held that the trial court had not abused its discretion in allowing the adoption to proceed without the mother’s consent.
What the Supreme Court Rejected
Although the Supreme Court affirmed the adoption, it rejected part of the Court of Appeals’ reasoning. The lower court had treated the issue too mechanically, suggesting that when a parent’s misconduct led to a no-contact order, the lack of contact would automatically be without just cause. The Supreme Court said that went too far.
That means a no-contact order may be strong evidence, but it does not automatically decide the issue by itself. The court must still examine the larger history, including why the order was entered and what the parent did afterward.
What This Decision Means for Families
For stepparents and other prospective adoptive parents, Perkins v. Howington confirms that Virginia’s six-month no-contact statute can apply even when the lack of contact occurred during a court-ordered no-contact period. A no-contact order does not automatically prevent an adoptive parent from arguing that consent is unnecessary.
For biological parents, the case is also important because it shows that the existence of a no-contact order, by itself, may not preserve the right to block an adoption. A court may still examine the full history, including what led to the order and what happened afterward.
At the same time, the opinion does not say that every parent under a no-contact order automatically loses the right to object to an adoption. The Supreme Court specifically rejected that kind of bright-line rule. Instead, courts must consider the full facts and circumstances in each case.
The result in Perkins v. Howington gives clearer guidance on how Virginia courts will handle these disputes: the six-month period matters, but so does the reason for the lack of contact.
Rob Hagy is a Virginia divorce and family law attorney serving Charlottesville, Virginia, and surrounding communities. You can see more content from Rob at www.charlottesvilledivorceattorney.com and at www.virginiafamilylawjournal.com.