2022 Ohio 350
Ohio2022Background
- Father convicted of murdering the children’s mother (2007); children placed with maternal grandparents and juvenile-court order forbade any contact by father with the children “absent an Order from this Court.”
- Grandparents filed petitions to adopt the children (2015); probate proceedings bifurcated to decide whether father’s consent was required under R.C. 3107.07(A) (failure to have more than de minimis contact or to provide support for one year).
- Magistrate found the no-contact order provided a justifiable excuse for the father’s lack of contact; probate court reversed, reasoning father’s conduct produced the order and he should not benefit from it.
- Eighth District initially affirmed probate court (A.K. I), then after this court’s decision in In re Adoption of B.I. revisited and reversed (A.K. II), holding reliance on a court order can constitute justifiable cause.
- Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the Eighth District’s later judgment: when a parent obeys a valid no-contact order that forbids contact, the parent’s right to consent is not extinguished under R.C. 3107.07(A); father’s consent is therefore required and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Grandparents' Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether compliance with a judicial no-contact order is justifiable cause under R.C. 3107.07(A) for lack of >de minimis contact (so consent remains required) | Father should not be able to use obedience to the order to block adoption since he caused the circumstances that produced the order | Compliance with a valid court order is justifiable cause for lack of contact and preserves the right to withhold consent | Majority: Yes — obedience to a valid no-contact order that prohibited contact constitutes justifiable cause; father’s consent required |
| Whether the Eighth District was bound by its earlier decision (law-of-the-case) or may reconsider in light of this court’s intervening decision in B.I. | B.I. applies broadly and is intervening authority permitting reconsideration | Earlier appellate holding (A.K. I) should remain the law of the case; B.I. is not an intervening decision on this issue | Court: Law-of-the-case may yield to an intervening superior-court decision; B.I. was treated as controlling for purposes of reconsideration and result affirmed, though some justices dissented on this point |
| Whether B.I.’s three-part test (what decree required; compliance; justifiable cause) applies to contact (de minimis) claims or is limited to support (judicial-decree) claims | B.I.’s framework applies analogously to contact cases; a court order barring contact can be dispositive of the analysis | Contact and support provisions differ; the statute’s plain language treats them differently and B.I. should not be read to conflate them | Majority: Applied the B.I.-styled threshold analysis and concluded the no-contact order established justification; concurring and dissenting opinions objected to extending B.I. beyond judicial-decree (support) contexts |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of B.I., 157 Ohio St.3d 29, 131 N.E.3d 28 (Ohio 2019) (establishes three-part framework for assessing child-support-related R.C. 3107.07(A) questions and emphasized respect for valid court orders)
- In re Adoption of M.B., 131 Ohio St.3d 186, 963 N.E.2d 142 (Ohio 2012) (discusses the two-step R.C. 3107.07(A) inquiry and burdens of proof)
- In re Adoption of A.C.B., 159 Ohio St.3d 256, 150 N.E.3d 82 (Ohio 2020) (clarifies measurement of support obligations by judicial decree)
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (Ohio 1997) (describes the permanent termination of parental rights as the family-law equivalent of the death penalty)
- Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 1984) (explains the law-of-the-case doctrine and its exceptions)