In re Adoption of A.N.W.
2016 Ohio 463
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Biological parents divorced in 2008; mother (Appellant R.W.) was residential parent initially; father (D.W.) paid court-ordered child support.
- Father later became residential parent by a March 10, 2014 agreed reallocation entry that suspended child support (the entry expressly provided no child support was to be paid) but assigned 40% of non-covered medical expenses to mother.
- Father married Appellee S.K.K.W.; Appellee filed step-parent adoption petitions (June 9, 2015) stating father consented and alleging mother’s consent was not required because she failed without justifiable cause to provide maintenance and support for at least one year prior to filing. The petitions did not check the “de minimis contact” ground.
- Mother received notice that the petitions alleged only failure to support; hearing occurred and testimony (including about contact) was received; mother objected at times to contact-focused questions.
- Probate court found, based on testimony, that mother failed without justifiable cause to provide support and to have more than de minimis contact for the statutory one-year period and therefore her consent was not required; mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Appellee) | Defendant's Argument (Appellant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mother’s consent was unnecessary because she failed without justifiable cause to provide maintenance and support for ≥1 year under R.C. 3107.07(A) | Mother did not pay support or provide gifts or in-kind support during the year; thus consent not required. | Mother had an agreed/no-support judicial order relieving her of child-support obligations; that order is justifiable cause for not paying support (except where the decree specifically obligates payment, e.g., non-covered medical expenses). | Reversed: the probate court erred. The zero/no-support order constituted justifiable cause for not providing support generally; non-covered medical expenses remained an obligation, but failure to pay was justified because bills were never submitted/requested. |
| Whether probate court could find mother failed to provide more than de minimis contact when the adoption petition did not allege lack of contact and mother lacked notice | Appellee contends mother’s hearing testimony and evidence showed virtually no contact and she did not preserve objections to such evidence. | Mother argues she was entitled to notice of the contact claim (petition did not allege it), she objected at hearing, and due process required notice so she could prepare a defense; thus probate court should not decide contact. | Reversed: petition failed to allege the contact ground and mother lacked notice; probate court erred in ruling on contact. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (Plaintiff must satisfy heightened standard before parental rights are terminated)
- In re Adoption of Greer, 70 Ohio St.3d 293 (trial court finding under R.C. 3107.07 is a final appealable order)
- In re Adoption of Masa, 23 Ohio St.3d 163 (parental rights are fundamental; exceptions to consent requirement strictly construed)
- In re Adoption of Bovett, 33 Ohio St.3d 102 (burden on petitioner to prove failure to support by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Adoption of M.B., 131 Ohio St.3d 186 (two-step analysis under R.C. 3107.07: establish failure, then justify-cause inquiry)
- In re Schoeppner, 46 Ohio St.2d 21 (strict construction of consent exceptions to protect parental rights)
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (appellate review will not disturb trial court where some competent, credible evidence supports findings)