In re Adoption of I.M.M.
2016 Ohio 5891
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Child I.M.M. (b. 12/15/2010) is biologically fathered by appellant Eric Coffman; mother is Brianna Mack, married to appellee Timothy R. Mack, who petitioned to adopt the child.
- Timothy Mack petitioned (Dec. 16, 2015) claiming Eric Coffman’s consent was not required because Coffman failed without justifiable cause to maintain more than de minimis contact for the year before the petition, per R.C. 3107.07(A).
- Coffman was incarcerated much of the child’s life, subject to a civil protection order (CPO) that protected the mother and child during the relevant period, and is serving a multi‑year sentence for violent offenses.
- Evidence at the probate hearing: an accidental brief Wal‑Mart encounter in April 2014 (over a year before the petition); gifts given to Coffman’s sister in Dec. 2014 that the mother testified she did not give to the child; no other meaningful contact shown during the statutory year.
- Coffman was transported from prison and participated in the adoption hearing but did not have court‑appointed counsel; the probate court granted the adoption (April 28, 2016). Coffman appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Coffman) | Defendant's Argument (Mack) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by not appointing counsel for Coffman | Coffman: entitled to appointed counsel in adoption proceedings | Mack: no constitutional right to appointed counsel; Coffman participated and could be transported | Court: No error; no constitutional right to counsel in adoption and Coffman meaningfully participated |
| Whether Coffman’s consent was required under R.C. 3107.07(A) (failure to communicate/support for one year) | Coffman: he had contact within the year and a CPO justified lack of contact | Mack: Coffman had not maintained more than de minimis contact; CPO resulted from Coffman’s own conduct and does not justify failure to communicate | Court: Held Coffman failed without justifiable cause to have more than de minimis contact for the statutory year; consent not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (no constitutional right to appointed counsel in parental‑rights termination proceedings)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (parents have fundamental liberty interest in care and custody of children)
- In re Adoption of Bovett, 33 Ohio St.3d 102 (petitioner must prove failure to communicate/support by clear and convincing evidence; burden never shifts)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (custodial parent’s interference may constitute justifiable cause for lack of communication)