In re Adoption of A.W.P.
2017 Ohio 5479
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Father (Ronald S.) is the biological father of A.W.P. (born 2009); parents never married. Father had intermittent juvenile-court proceedings and a visitation order entered in early 2013.
- After early 2013 visits, relations deteriorated; Father filed and then dismissed a juvenile show-cause motion to enforce visitation and made no further contact after April 2013.
- Stepfather (Dustin P.) filed to adopt A.W.P. on April 6, 2015, alleging Father’s consent was not required under R.C. 3107.07(A) because Father failed for at least one year to provide support or more-than-de-minimis contact.
- Father became incarcerated in June 2015 (after the relevant one-year look-back), sought continuances and alternative methods to participate, and participated by telephone in the March 29, 2016 consent hearing.
- The magistrate and trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Father failed without justifiable cause to maintain more-than-de-minimis contact during the one-year period before the petition; the probate court concluded Father’s consent was not required. Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Stepfather’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused discretion by denying Father’s requested continuance | Denial of requested continuance (to Oct. 2016) violated due process given incarceration and need to prepare | Hearing management and docket control; Father had alternative remedies and sought to participate by phone | No abuse; continuance denial proper because Father contributed to delay and he participated by phone |
| Whether Father’s consent was unnecessary under R.C. 3107.07(A) for lack of more-than-de-minimis contact | Lack of contact was justified by Mother/Stepfather interference; Father had attempted some communication earlier | Father made no contact during the one-year look-back despite knowing addresses/numbers and a juvenile order; no justification | Court found clear and convincing evidence Father failed without justifiable cause to provide more-than-de-minimis contact; consent not required |
| Whether Father’s consent was unnecessary under R.C. 3107.07(A) for failure to support | Father disputed the finding or pointed to lack of formal child-support order and other circumstances | Stepfather argued statutory obligation to support exists regardless of formal order and Father provided no support during look-back | Majority decision rested on lack of contact; concurrence found failure to provide even de minimis financial support during look-back also satisfied statute |
| Whether probate court could proceed while juvenile-court motions were unresolved | Father contended unresolved juvenile motions barred probate adoption proceeding | Stepfather asserted no juvenile motions were pending when petition filed | No merit; counsel conceded no motions pending in juvenile court when adoption petition filed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (trial-court continuance abuse-of-discretion factors)
- In re Adoption of McDermitt, 63 Ohio St.2d 301 (adoption petition need only prove lack of communication or lack of support)
- In re Adoption of P.A.C., 126 Ohio St.3d 236 (adoption terminates natural-parent rights; burden is clear and convincing evidence)