Authored By: NDIOHO ABASI-ANYANGA OFONIME
University of Port Harcourt
I. Case Citation and Basic Information
Full Citation: Lindsey Nicole Perkins v. Rebecca Lynn (Hicks) Howington, et al., Record No. 240960 (Va. 2026).1
Court: Supreme Court of Virginia.
Date Decided: March 12, 2026.
Parties:
- Appellant: Lindsey Nicole Perkins (Biological Mother)
- Respondents: Rebecca Lynn Howington (Stepmother/Petitioner) and Justin Lee Howington (Biological Father)
II. Introduction
This case addresses a critical tension in family law: the balance between a biological parent’s fundamental rights and the state’s interest in the child’s welfare through adoption. It specifically interprets the “just cause” exception under Virginia’s adoption statutes, determining when a parent’s failure to maintain contact — even under a court-ordered “no-contact” mandate — can lead to the termination of their parental rights and the dispensing of their consent to adoption.
III. Facts of the Case
The child, J.H., was born in 2014 to Lindsey Perkins and Justin Howington. Following the parents’ separation, the father married Rebecca Howington in 2020. Due to the mother’s documented history of substance abuse, the Juvenile and Domestic Relations (J&DR) Court issued a series of protective orders. By July 2020, a “no-contact” order was in effect, prohibiting the mother from any contact with J.H. until she complied with court-ordered drug screenings.
In April 2021, the Howingtons filed a petition for Rebecca to adopt J.H. They argued that because the mother had not contacted the child for over six months, her consent to the adoption was not required. The mother countered that she was legally barred from contact by the court order itself.
IV. Legal Issues
- Does a court-ordered “no-contact” provision constitute “just cause” for a parent’s failure to visit or contact their child under Virginia Code § 63.2-1202(H)?2
- Should the court examine the reason the no-contact order was issued when determining whether “just cause” exists?
V. Arguments Presented
5.1 Appellant’s Arguments (Perkins)
- Legal Compliance: The Appellant argued she was simply obeying a lawful court order. To contact the child would have constituted a violation of that order and would have exposed her to contempt of court.
- Statutory Interpretation: She contended that “just cause” must include legal prohibitions, as a parent should not be penalized for following a judge’s instructions.
5.2 Respondents’ Arguments (The Howingtons)
- Self-Induced Hardship: The Respondents argued that the mother created the circumstances leading to the no-contact order through her substance abuse and her refusal to undergo the required screenings that would have lifted the order.
- Intentional Inaction: They posited that “just cause” does not apply when the parent has the power to remedy the situation but chooses not to act.
VI. Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court of Virginia applied a “totality of the circumstances” test. The Court reasoned that “just cause” is not a mechanical term. While a court order can constitute just cause, it does not automatically satisfy the just cause standard in every instance.
The Court found that Perkins held the “keys to her own cell.” The no-contact order was conditional: had she complied with drug testing, she could have regained contact with J.H. By failing to take the steps necessary to lift the order for over six months, the lack of contact was deemed to be the result of her own choices, not the product of an external legal barrier beyond her control.
VII. Judgment and Ratio Decidendi
Judgment: The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower court and the Court of Appeals of Virginia, allowing the adoption to proceed without the mother’s consent.
Ratio Decidendi: “Just cause” under Virginia Code § 63.2-1202(H) is a discretionary standard. A court-ordered prohibition on contact does not constitute just cause if that order resulted from the parent’s own voluntary misconduct or from a failure to perform conditions that were within the parent’s power to fulfill.
VIII. Critical Analysis
8.1 Significance of the Decision
This decision marks a shift away from a bright-line rule regarding court orders in adoption cases. It clarifies that Virginia courts will look beyond the face of an order to examine the underlying reasons for its issuance, rather than treating the mere existence of an order as dispositive.
8.2 Implications and Impact
This ruling places a heavy burden on parents with substance abuse or behavioral issues. It signals that simply “following an order” is not sufficient to protect parental rights if the parent is not actively working to resolve the issues that led to the order in the first place.
8.3 Critical Evaluation
While the decision prioritizes the child’s stability and permanency through adoption, some legal scholars argue that it edges close to terminating parental rights without the traditional “unfitness” finding, potentially implicating constitutional due process protections for parental rights — interests long recognized as fundamental under the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the Court’s focus on the parent’s agency — that is, their demonstrated ability to change the situation but failure to do so — provides a necessary and principled safeguard against the most sweeping applications of this holding.
IX. Conclusion
Perkins v. Howington (2026) reinforces the principle that parental rights come with parental responsibilities. In the context of Virginia adoption law, a legal barrier to contact constitutes “just cause” only when it is truly beyond the parent’s control — not when it is a foreseeable consequence of the parent’s own conduct and inaction.
X. Reference(S):
- Lindsey Nicole Perkins v. Rebecca Lynn (Hicks) Howington, et al., Record No. 240960 (Va. 2026).3
- Virginia Code § 63.2-1202(H).4
- In re Adoption of J.H., 78 Va. App. 452 (2024) (Court of Appeals of Virginia).5
1 Official opinion of the Supreme Court of Virginia, issued March 12, 2026; Lindsey Nicole Perkins v. Rebecca Lynn (Hicks) Howington, et al., Record No. 240960 (Va. 2026).
2 Virginia Code § 63.2-1202(H) (governing notice and consent for adoption, and the circumstances under which the biological parent’s consent is not required).
3 Official opinion of the Supreme Court of Virginia, issued March 12, 2026.
4 Statute governing when the consent of a biological parent is not required for adoption.
5 Record of the Court of Appeals of Virginia; case originally appealed from the Circuit Court of Washington County.
