2020 Ohio 979
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- C.H.B. born 2015 to Mother and Father; Maternal grandparents (petitioners) sought to adopt and alleged Father failed for at least one year to provide more than de minimis contact or maintenance/support under R.C. 3107.07(A).
- Petition filed November 20, 2018; Mother consented; Father received notice and later objected.
- Father had been convicted by jury of two counts of felony child endangering with findings of serious physical harm to C.H.B.; sentenced to prison (term began May 16, 2016) and later granted judicial release and placed on community control with conditions prohibiting contact with Mother and C.H.B.
- Parties stipulated Father had no communication with the child during the statutory look‑back period and was incarcerated/living in a CBCF and unable to seek employment; the judgment entry asked the court to decide whether Father’s consent was required.
- Trial court held Father failed without justifiable cause both to provide more than de minimis contact and to provide maintenance/support for the relevant year and thus his consent was not required; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Maternal Grandparents) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father failed without justifiable cause to provide maintenance/support for the statutory year | Father had an independent duty under R.C. 3103.03; he failed to support and no justifiable cause exists because incarceration resulted from his conduct | Incarceration and absence of a child‑support order made it impossible to provide support; thus justifiable cause exists | Court: Father had a general duty to support; incarceration and lack of order did not excuse him here; no justifiable cause — affirmed |
| Whether Father failed without justifiable cause to provide more than de minimis contact for the statutory year | Father’s no‑contact orders arose from his convictions; public policy prevents him from benefitting from his crimes; thus no justifiable cause | No‑contact orders and imprisonment made contact impossible and therefore justified his lack of contact | Court: Because Father’s violent, voluntary conduct against the child produced the no‑contact restriction, the court properly found no justifiable cause — affirmed |
| Whether the trial court improperly considered Father’s criminal convictions and sentence in the R.C. 3107.07(A) analysis | Petitioners: court may consider underlying facts; parent should not benefit from consequences of crimes against the child | Father: relying on older precedent, incarceration alone cannot as a matter of law bar consent requirement | Court: It may consider the convictions and their circumstances; using stipulations and conviction records was proper — affirmed |
| Whether Father’s objection was untimely under R.C. 3107.07(K) (raised by petitioners on appeal) | Petitioners: Father failed to object within 14 days so consent unnecessary | Father: issue was not raised below; litigants cannot raise new theories on appeal | Court: Petitioners forfeited the argument by not raising it below; appellate court rejects it |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of M.B., 131 Ohio St.3d 186 (2012) (articulates two‑step analysis for R.C. 3107.07(A) and burden/standards)
- In re Adoption of B.I., 157 Ohio St.3d 29 (2019) (clarifies parental duty to support: general duty under R.C. 3103.03 vs. specific judicial decree)
- In re Adoption of Greer, 70 Ohio St.3d 293 (1994) (holding that an R.C. 3107.07 finding is a final, appealable order)
- In re Schoeppner, 46 Ohio St.2d 21 (1976) (incarceration alone does not automatically constitute justifiable cause for failure to support)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (discusses fundamental parental rights and standards when terminating parental rights)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (defines clear and convincing evidence standard)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (defines abuse of discretion standard)