In re Adoption of J.K.C.
2017 Ohio 159
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Child J.K.C., born 2006; parents (Father Justin Pate, Sr. and Mother Amanda Criddle) separated in 2008; Mother later married Appellant Scott Criddle (Step-father) in 2012.
- Mother moved multiple times (PA → KY → OH) and did not provide Father with updated addresses or phone numbers; family testimony recounts gifts, Facebook contacts, and sporadic in-person sightings where Mother avoided Father.
- Father had intermittent visitation through 2011, then little-to-no contact thereafter; Father asserts he called many times, hired an attorney in 2011, lacked resources for certain court-ordered evaluations, and was deterred by Mother’s conduct and advice to route communications through a guardian ad litem.
- Step-father filed to adopt the child on April 20, 2016; he initially alleged Father failed to support but withdrew that claim and proceeded on the allegation that Father failed without justifiable cause to have more than de minimis contact with the child for the year prior to the petition.
- Probate court found Step-father did not prove Father failed without justifiable cause to provide more than de minimis contact for the requisite year, concluded Mother (or petitioner) interfered with Father’s contact (including blocking Facebook), held Father’s consent to the adoption was necessary, and dismissed the adoption petition; Step-father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Step-father) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father’s lack of contact during the relevant year was without justifiable cause under R.C. 3107.07(A) | Father failed to maintain more than de minimis contact for the year before the petition, so consent is not required | Mother’s moves, withheld contact info, and interference prevented contact; Father made reasonable attempts to locate and contact the child | Court held Mother’s interference constituted justifiable cause; Step-father failed to meet burden; Father’s consent required |
| Whether Mother (or Step-father) blocked Father’s Facebook and otherwise intentionally prevented communication, excusing Father’s lack of contact | Blocking/controls of the child’s Facebook and withholding contact info did not prove justification for lack of contact | Testimony showed adults controlled the child’s Facebook settings, Father’s friend request was denied, and Mother withheld addresses/phone numbers | Court found credible evidence that Mother or petitioner blocked Facebook and intentionally withheld contact information; this supported finding of justifiable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (1997) (parental rights are fundamental and require full procedural protections)
- In re Hoffman, 97 Ohio St.3d 92 (2002) (termination of parental rights compared to criminal death-penalty analogy; strict protections required)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for manifest-weight review in civil cases)
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (1978) (sufficiency standard: judgment supported by competent, credible evidence will not be reversed)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (weight-of-evidence principles applicable to appellate review)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (1984) (presumption in favor of the factfinder on review)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (1985) (parental interference with visitation can constitute justifiable cause excusing lack of contact)