In re Adoption of A.N.
997 N.E.2d 1244
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- A.N. was born February 11, 2012 and placed with petitioners Scott and Erica Nord days later; the Nords filed to adopt on February 15, 2012.
- Kris Scheiderer had registered in Ohio’s Putative Father Registry (Sept. 6, 2011) and later initiated a paternity action; he did not file a written objection to the amended adoption petition within 14 days of receiving formal notice.
- The probate court sent two notices; the dispositive notice was mailed August 20, 2012 and proof of receipt was filed August 23, 2012.
- The probate court held a hearing Sept. 26–27, 2012; Scheiderer orally stated he did not consent at the hearing (which occurred after the 14‑day window).
- The probate court concluded Scheiderer’s consent was required (finding no clear‑and‑convincing proof of abandonment/failure to support) and ordered the child returned to the State; the Nords appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Nords' Argument | Scheiderer/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a putative father who received notice under R.C. 3107.11(A)(1) waives his right to contest adoption by failing to file a written objection within 14 days under R.C. 3107.07(K) | R.C. 3107.11 notice was given; failing to file the 14‑day written objection waives consent and relieves the need for the putative father’s consent | Because Scheiderer registered in the Putative Father Registry and pursued paternity proceedings and appeared at hearings, his consent remained required under R.C. 3107.07(B) and his failure to file a formal written objection should not be fatal | Court reversed: under R.C. 3107.07(K) and R.C. 3107.11, Scheiderer’s consent was not required because proof of notice was filed and he failed to timely file a written objection within 14 days |
| Whether R.C. 3107.07(B) (protections for registered putative fathers) overrides the R.C. 3107.07(K) 14‑day objection rule | Nords: R.C. 3107.07(K) applies to any person entitled to notice; registry status does not nullify the 14‑day objection requirement | Scheiderer: registry status means consent is required absent specific findings (e.g., abandonment), so procedural failure to file should be excused | Held that registration does not trump R.C. 3107.07(K); registration prevents certain exceptions but does not negate the independent, statutory 14‑day objection rule |
| Whether the probate court’s findings on abandonment/failure‑to‑support were erroneous | Nords: trial court erred in finding abandonment/support defenses unjustified (but this argument assumes Scheiderer’s consent was required) | Trial court found insufficient clear‑and‑convincing evidence of willful abandonment/failure to support | Moot — appellate court declined to reach because it held consent was excused by failure to timely object |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of Zschach, 75 Ohio St.3d 648 (Ohio 1996) (recognizes putative‑father rights but enforces strict procedural statutory mandates in adoption cases)
- Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1983) (federal recognition of putative father interests in parent‑child relationships)
- In re Adoption of Greer, 70 Ohio St.3d 293 (Ohio 1994) (discusses putative‑father procedural rights and whether oral objections can suffice)
- Lemley v. Kaiser, 6 Ohio St.3d 258 (Ohio 1983) (adoption statutes are in derogation of common law and must be strictly construed)
- In re Adoption of P.A.C., 126 Ohio St.3d 236 (Ohio 2010) (discusses legislative intent to streamline adoption process and reduce finalization time)
Disposition: Judgment reversed; case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion (the court held Scheiderer’s consent was not required because he failed to timely file a written objection under R.C. 3107.07(K)).