2018 Ohio 5063
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Child B.G.F. born 2014 in Indiana to Mother (M.F.) and Father (T.H.P.); parents never married. Mother moved to Ohio shortly after birth and lived with Step-Father (C.M.F.), who later married Mother (2017).
- Step-Father filed for adoption Oct. 19, 2017, alleging Father’s consent not required under R.C. 3107.07(A) because Father failed for the prior year to provide more than de minimis contact and failed to provide maintenance/support.
- Father answered, denied allegations, and later contended he is a putative father (invoking R.C. 3107.07(B)) and that he was not properly served under that theory.
- At the hearing, evidence included the Indiana birth certificate listing Father’s name, Mother’s testimony about paternity-affidavit procedures in Indiana, limited in-person contacts, a few FaceTime sessions, conflicting testimony about who arranged FaceTime, and minimal monetary contributions (two $50 checks older than one year).
- Trial court found Father was a legal/natural parent (not a putative father) because Indiana law requires an executed paternity affidavit to place the father’s name on the birth certificate, applied R.C. 3107.07(A), and concluded Step-Father proved by clear and convincing evidence Father failed without justifiable cause to provide more than de minimis contact and to provide maintenance/support in the year prior to the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Step-Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Father properly served and which statutory provision applies (R.C. 3107.07(A) v. 3107.07(B))? | Father: He is a putative father under Ohio law; 3107.07(B) governs and notice under (A) was insufficient. | Step-Father: Indiana birth certificate + paternity affidavit procedure show Father is a legal/natural parent; 3107.07(A) applies and notice was proper. | Court: Father is a parent (not putative) based on Indiana paternity-affidavit practice; R.C. 3107.07(A) applies; service/notice were proper. |
| Did Step-Father prove Father failed to provide more than de minimis contact in prior year? | Father: Limited FaceTime and occasional visits satisfy more-than-de-minimis contact or Mother obstructed contact. | Step-Father: Contact was minimal, sporadic, often for grandmother, and Father didn’t pursue visitation or court enforcement. | Court: Credibility favored Mother/ grandparents; FaceTime frequency/duration insufficient; Father failed to have more than de minimis contact without justifiable cause. |
| Did Step-Father prove Father failed to provide maintenance/support as required by law for prior year? | Father: He funded gifts (via grandmother) and paid majority of some items; thus provided support. | Step-Father: Gifts were de minimis and not statutory support; only two $50 checks noted and were outside the year. | Court: Monetary contributions were de minimis and not statutory maintenance/support; requirement satisfied for nonconsent. |
| Was the trial court’s overall conclusion against the manifest weight of the evidence? | Father: Trial court erred in facts and credibility determinations; verdict against manifest weight. | Step-Father: Probate court had discretion, observed witnesses, and made reasonable credibility findings supported by the record. | Court: No abuse of discretion or manifest-weight error; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of M.B., 131 Ohio St.3d 186 (Ohio 2012) (two-step analysis and clear-and-convincing standard under R.C. 3107.07(A))
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parental rights are fundamental; heightened proof required for termination)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for abuse of discretion)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (Ohio 1985) (probate court’s advantage in assessing witness credibility)