2019 Ohio 2450
Ohio2019Background
- B.I. (born 2007) is the child of mother K.I. and father G.B.; mother’s husband G.I. (stepfather) petitioned to adopt B.I. in Hamilton County probate court in 2016.
- R.C. 3107.07(A) permits adoption without a natural parent’s consent if the parent ‘‘failed without justifiable cause to provide
- for the maintenance and support of the minor as required by law or judicial decree’’ for at least one year before the adoption petition.
- Father was incarcerated from 2009 onward. In 2010 the Clermont County juvenile court (at mother’s request) terminated the father’s existing child-support obligation and reduced arrearages to $0.00. The father provided no financial support in the year before the adoption petition. He did, however, receive modest prison income and commissary deposits from family/friends.
- A probate-court magistrate found father had means and failed to pay support; the probate court overruled the magistrate, holding the valid zero-support order provided justifiable cause. The First District affirmed the probate court, creating a conflict with Fifth District decisions.
- The Ohio Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether a judicial decree relieving a parent of a child-support obligation precludes finding a statutory failure to provide maintenance and support under R.C. 3107.07(A).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (G.I./stepfather) | Defendant's Argument (G.B./father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a judicial order terminating or setting child support at zero prevents a probate court from finding a parent ‘‘failed to provide for the maintenance and support as required by law or judicial decree’’ under R.C. 3107.07(A) | Zero-support order should not automatically shield father; probate court must weigh all circumstances and may find the parent failed to provide support required by law (e.g., common-law/statutory duty) despite the decree | A valid no-support judicial decree defines the parent’s support obligation and therefore provides justifiable cause; a parent cannot be penalized (lose consent right) for complying with such a decree | Affirmed: A no-support order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction defines the parent’s support obligation for the relevant period and prevents finding the parent failed ‘‘as required by law or judicial decree’’ under R.C. 3107.07(A) |
| Whether R.C. 3107.07(A)’s phrase "as required by law or judicial decree" should be read to permit relying on other statutes (e.g., criminal nonsupport statutes) to find failure despite a zero-support decree | N/A (primary attack is on probate-court discretion approach) | A criminal or statutory duty (outside the support-order scheme) cannot be applied to negate reliance on a valid support order; compliance with the decree bars prosecution under nonsupport statutes and similarly bars finding a failure under R.C. 3107.07(A) | Court rejected use of separate criminal/statutory obligations to circumvent a judicial support decree; a valid no-support order precludes treating the parent as having failed "as required by law" |
| Whether R.C. 3107.07(A) must be strictly construed to protect parental rights even where a parent provided no support for the relevant year | Argues trial courts must consider zero-support order as one factor, not dispositive; petitioner should bear burden to prove failure without justifiable cause | Maintains statute must be construed to respect child-support scheme and existing judicial decrees; parent relied on decree | Court construed statute in connection with Ohio’s child-support statutory scheme and held decree is determinative of the judicial-decree component; strict construction favors parental rights but does not permit overriding a valid support order |
| Remedy/procedural outcome in this case | Remand for more fact-sensitive weighing regarding justifiable cause (stepfather) | Affirmance of probate-court and appellate-court judgments (father) | Court affirmed the First District: father’s consent remained required because the no-support decree satisfied the statutory requirement for ‘‘justifiable cause’’ vis-à-vis the judicial-decree element |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (1997) (describing adoption and termination of parental rights as drastic remedies; supports protecting parental rights)
- In re Adoption of G.V., 126 Ohio St.3d 249 (2010) (adoption statutes and exceptions to parental consent must be strictly construed to protect natural parents)
- Meyer v. Meyer, 17 Ohio St.3d 222 (1985) (domestic-relations court authority to order child support under R.C. 3109.05)
- In re Adoption of McDermitt, 63 Ohio St.2d 301 (1980) (judicial decree of support incorporates common-law duty of support)