In re Adoption of J.A.B.
2014 Ohio 1375
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Adoptive aunt sought placement for adoption of her nephew J.A.B., Jr. in 2013; the child’s parents included Jasper Beede, Sr. (Father) and Jenny Paronish-McNabb (Mother).
- The child was born in 2003 in Texas; Hurricane Katrina in 2005 led to the family’s displacement and a custody arrangement placing the child with Aunt in Ohio in fall 2005.
- Aunt obtained legal custody in 2008; Father was incarcerated for periods beginning in 2009 and continuing through 2019, with some parole eligibility, while maintaining some contact.
- Mother consented to the adoption in 2013; Father opposed termination of parental rights and contested the adoption petition.
- Probate court held that Aunt failed to prove abandonment under R.C. 3107.07(A) and denied the petition; Aunt appealed challenging abandonment, de minimis contact, and justifiable cause to not support, ultimately affirming the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father abandoned the child under R.C. 3107.07(A). | Paronish contends Father abandoned the child by failing to support or visit within the statutory period. | Beede argues there was no abandonment given ongoing contact and circumstances. | No; the court held Father did not abandon the child; his contact and circumstances showed justifiable connection. |
| Whether letters from prison constitute de minimis contact for consent purposes. | Paronish asserts contact through letters is insufficient to show more than de minimis contact. | Beede contends prison correspondence constitutes meaningful contact relevant to consent. | No; the court found Father’s prison communications were more than de minimis and supported his right to consent. |
| Whether Father had justifiable cause to not support due to incarceration. | Paronish argues lack of support due to incarceration shows justifiable cause to avoid consent. | Beede argues incarceration is a factor but does not automatically negate obligation or consent. | No; the court found Father’s incarceration did not establish lack of justifiable cause to deny consent. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (Ohio 1997) (parental rights require due process protections in termination cases)
- In re Bovett, 33 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1987) (burden-shifting framework under R.C. 3107.07(A) when proving lack of support)
- In re Masa, 23 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 1986) (proof requirements: petitioner must prove lack of support and lack of justifiable cause)