In re Adoption of J.R.H.
2013 Ohio 3385
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- J.H. is the biological mother of J.R.H., born February 2008; paternal grandparents E.H. and K.H. had custody.
- In 2009 a custody order gave E.H. and K.H. legal custody with J.H. allowed biweekly parenting time to be mutually agreed.
- Visitation in 2009–2010 was sporadic and increasingly infrequent; last in-person contact occurred May 26, 2011.
- E.H. and K.H. filed a petition to adopt J.R.H. in June 2012; J.H. did not pursue court-ordered visitation or enforcement actions.
- Trial court found J.H. had no more than de minimis contact for over a year before the petition and lacked justifiable cause, forfeiting consent.
- Appellant argues the gifts/contacts after May 2011 show more than de minimis contact and that there was justifiable cause for limited contact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consent was unnecessary due to lack of more than de minimis contact | J.H. contends gifts constitute more than de minimis contact. | Court reasonably found contact was de minimis and not above threshold. | No error; contact was not more than de minimis. |
| Whether there was justifiable cause for the lack of more than de minimis contact | Any lack of contact was due to interference by E.H. and K.H. | Trial court found no credible justifiable cause for the lack of contact. | No justifiable cause; lack of contact upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.D.T., 978 N.E.2d 602 (7th Dist. 2012) (more than de minimis contact requires meaningful effort; facts distinguishable)
- In re M.B., 131 Ohio St.3d 186 (Ohio 2012) (two-step probate analysis for support and contact; clear and convincing standard)
- Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (Ohio 1985) (significant interference required to show justifiable cause)
- In re Adoption of Bovett, 33 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1987) (burden of proof and justifiable cause standards in adoption)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (standard of proof definition for civil cases)
- In re Adoption of Peshek, 143 Ohio App.3d 839 (2d Dist. 2001) (single-card contact distinguished from de minimis under old standard)