2018 Ohio 897
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Child C.N.A. born March 2011 to Nathaniel Parker (father) and Amanda Anderson (mother); Brent Anderson (mother’s husband) petitioned to adopt the child in Feb. 2017.
- Brent alleged Nathaniel’s consent unnecessary under R.C. 3107.07(A) because Nathaniel failed for one year to (a) provide more than de minimis contact and (b) provide maintenance/support as required by law or decree.
- Trial court held hearings (July 27 & Aug. 3, 2017) and found Brent failed to prove either statutory ground; it alternatively found any limited contact was justified due to mother’s interference.
- Key factual findings: Nathaniel attended a wrestling meet and had multiple communications (phone, Skype, offers of monetary aid); Amanda blocked calls, limited contact, and controlled visitation/communication.
- The probate court concluded Nathaniel provided support (rental income/assets and offers/payments for child needs) and that Amanda significantly interfered with communication.
- Brent appealed, arguing the court erred in requiring Nathaniel’s consent; the Third District affirmed on March 12, 2018.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brent) | Defendant's Argument (Nathaniel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nathaniel failed to provide more than de minimis contact for the statutory one-year period | Nathaniel made only minimal contacts and missed opportunities; consent not required | Nathaniel had multiple meaningful contacts (in-person at events, calls, Skype) and attempted ongoing contact | Court: Brent failed to prove failure of more than de minimis contact; decision reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed |
| Whether any limited contact was justified | Brent: no legally justifiable cause | Nathaniel: mother Amanda interfered/blocked contact and discouraged communication | Court: substantial evidence Amanda significantly interfered; justification found (manifest weight review) |
| Whether Nathaniel failed to provide maintenance/support as required by law or decree | Brent: no sufficient support/payments during the year | Nathaniel: provided financial contributions, offers to pay for child needs, and parties treated rental income as support | Court: evidence showed financial contributions/support (including rental income and offers/payments); Brent failed to prove statutory failure |
| Appellate briefing/form requirements | Brent did not adequately argue or cite record/statutes on appeal | Respondent relied on trial record and standard of review | Court noted Brent’s briefing defects but nonetheless reviewed and affirmed on the merits; assignment of error overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of M.B., [citation="131 Ohio St.3d 186"] (Supreme Court of Ohio 2012) (sets two-step analysis under R.C. 3107.07(A) and burden allocation)
- Cross v. Ledford, [citation="161 Ohio St. 469"] (Ohio 1954) (defines clear-and-convincing evidence standard)
- In re Adoption of McNutt, [citation="134 Ohio App.3d 822"] (4th Dist. 1999) (financial contributions and non-monetary aid can constitute maintenance and support)
- In re Adoption of Masa, [citation="23 Ohio St.3d 163"] (Ohio 1986) (standard for manifest weight review of probate court determinations)