2018 Ohio 507
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Mother (A.N.D.) gave birth to A.L.S. in 2012; child was placed with paternal great‑grandparents (Petitioners) in Oct. 2013 and Petitioners received legal custody in Feb. 2014 with Mother allowed reasonable visitation.
- Mother had sporadic contact after April 2014; parties dispute whether Mother repeatedly tried to arrange visits or largely failed to follow through. Mother moved frequently and changed phone numbers. Petitioners remained at the same residence and phone number.
- Mother filed a custody petition in juvenile court (June 2016). Petitioners filed to adopt A.L.S. in probate court (Aug. 2016), alleging Mother’s consent was unnecessary under R.C. 3107.07(A) due to (1) failure to have more than de minimis contact and (2) failure to provide maintenance/support for the one‑year statutory period.
- Probate court held hearings, found by clear and convincing evidence Mother failed without justifiable cause to have more than de minimis contact in the statutory period, and that adoption was in the child’s best interest.
- Mother appealed, arguing (a) her custody filing and attempts to contact preserved her parental consent rights and (b) pregnancy/other circumstances justified any failure to support; she also challenged the best‑interest finding. Court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Petitioners) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother's consent unnecessary because she failed without justifiable cause to have more than de minimis contact for the year before the adoption petition | Filing a custody motion and repeated attempts to contact the child preserved contact requirement; Petitioners obstructed communication | Mother’s contact was sporadic, she failed to follow up, and Petitioners tried to return calls but were impeded by Mother’s changing numbers/addresses | Court held Petitioners proved by clear and convincing evidence Mother failed to have more than de minimis contact without justifiable cause; no abuse of discretion in factual findings |
| Whether Mother's consent unnecessary because she failed without justifiable cause to provide maintenance/support for the statutory year | Pregnancy prevented provision of support (argued briefly) | Mother provided no specific evidence that pregnancy prevented support; Petitioners relied on de minimis contact finding | Court treated maintenance/support argument as moot once de minimis contact finding established statutory basis for dispensing with consent |
| Whether probate court erred in best‑interest determination under R.C. 3107.161 | Mother argued she now has stable care of two other children and desires to parent A.L.S.; caseworker saw no neglect of other children | Petitioners argued A.L.S. is well integrated, stable with them, and needs permanency; Mother has unstable housing and arrest warrants pending | Court held probate court did not abuse discretion; adoption was in the child’s best interest and provided permanency |
| Whether pending juvenile custody action negated probate court authority to decide adoption without consent | Mother contended her juvenile custody filing preserved her consent right | Petitioners argued placement predated Mother’s petition and probate court could proceed; precedent distinguishes parentage actions from late custody filings | Court rejected Mother’s unpreserved appellate argument as meritless and distinguished case law; probate court could rule on adoption consent issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (defines "clear and convincing" standard)
- In re Adoption of M.B., 131 Ohio St.3d 186 (Ohio 2012) (manifest‑weight standard for justifiable‑cause determination in adoption consent cases)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (Ohio 1985) (custodial parent’s substantial interference can establish justifiable cause for noncustodial parent’s lack of communication)
- In re Adoption of Pushcar, 110 Ohio St.3d 332 (Ohio 2006) (distinguishes interplay of juvenile‑court parentage/custody proceedings and probate adoption jurisdiction)
- State v. Morris, 132 Ohio St.3d 337 (Ohio 2012) (explains abuse‑of‑discretion review is deferential)