In re Adoption of K.C.
2014 Ohio 3985
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Andrew challenged Scott's adoption petition, with the trial court finding no justifiable cause for de minimis contact for at least one year before the petition.
- K.C. was born in December 2010; Jordan and Scott have resided together since K.C.’s birth, with Scott continuing as the child's caregiver and Jordan as custodian.
- Andrew’s paternity was established and he paid child support; the last contact with K.C. occurred March 2011 in a Wal-Mart parking lot visit.
- Scott filed the adoption petition December 12, 2012; Andrew objected February 8, 2013, contending he attempted contact but was thwarted by Jordan.
- A March 28, 2013 final hearing was limited to the de minimis contact issue; witnesses testified about efforts to contact and visits, with Facebook messages introduced as exhibits.
- On February 20, 2014, the trial court found Andrew failed to provide more than de minimis contact without justifiable cause and granted Scott’s adoption petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was clear and convincing proof of de minimis contact | Fisher | Fisher | Yes; court found de minimis contact established |
| Whether justifiable cause existed for lack of contact | Scott argued no justifiable cause; Andrew failed to act despite opportunities | Andrew argued illness and barriers created sustained obstacles | No justifiable cause; record supports trial court |
| Whether the hearing was properly limited to the de minimis issue and could not probe marriage | Scott | Andrew | Limitations proper; marriage evidence not allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of M.B., 131 Ohio St.3d 186 (Ohio Supreme Court 2012) (two-step analysis for RC 3107.07(A), de minimis contact and justifiable cause)
- In re R.L.H., 2013-Ohio-3462 (2d Dist. Montgomery 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard for first step under M.B.)
- In re Adoption of Masa, 23 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 1986) (burden on petitioner in termination of parental rights context)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (Ohio 1985) (standard for whether consent is required in adoption)
- In re Adoption of A.H., 2013-Ohio-1600 (9th Dist. No. 12CA010312 2013) (recognizes de minimis contact standard post-2009 amendment)
- In re J.D.T., 2012-Ohio-4537 (7th Dist. Harrison 2012) (interpretation of de minimis contact standard)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (provides burden of proof standard for civil matters)