In re Adoption of K.N.W
2016 Ohio 5863
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Chad Jarvis and Lucinda Waggoner are parents of two minor children; after divorce Lucinda married Kenneth Waggoner, who petitioned to adopt the children in August 2015.
- The dissolution decree (2009) named Lucinda residential parent and ordered Jarvis to pay child support ($300 plus additions; modified monthly obligation during relevant year was $367.20).
- Kenneth alleged under R.C. 3107.07(A) that Jarvis failed, without justifiable cause, for the one-year period before the petitions to (1) provide more than de minimis contact and (2) provide maintenance and support as ordered.
- Evidence at the probate hearing: Jarvis largely ceased visitation after refusing court-ordered/random drug tests; he made only one partial/insufficient payment in the relevant year (June 2015: $300 voluntary + $28 IRS recapture = $328), had a history of drug addiction, intermittent side jobs, and no steady employment since 2009.
- Probate court found Jarvis’s consent not required based on both alternative statutory grounds; Jarvis appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jarvis) | Defendant's Argument (Kenneth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jarvis’s consent was unnecessary because he failed to provide maintenance and support for the one-year statutory period | Single partial payment (June 2015) was sufficient to defeat the exception | Single noncompliant payment plus IRS recapture did not satisfy judicially-ordered support for the year; the petitioner met burden by clear and convincing evidence | Court affirmed: one solitary partial payment (< full monthly amount and <7% annual obligation) did not constitute required maintenance and support (abuse-of-discretion standard) |
| Whether Jarvis’s failure to pay had justifiable cause (e.g., unemployment, drug addiction, health issues, or belief support was unnecessary) | Unemployment, addiction, knee injury, and belief that support was not needed justified nonpayment | Voluntary drug use caused job loss; side-job earnings were not used to pay support; health issue arose late; existence of a support order defeats “no reason to believe support necessary” cases | Court affirmed: evidence did not show justifiable cause; findings not against manifest weight of evidence |
| Whether Jarvis’s consent was unnecessary because he failed to have more than de minimis contact in the year before filing | Jarvis claimed he attempted contact monthly; occasional calls/voicemails suffice | Contacts were minimal (calls where children declined, two brief contacts via parents) and amounted to de minimis contact | Court did not need to decide this issue (moot) because support ground independently sufficed; probate court had found contact was de minimis |
| Whether the probate court applied the required clear-and-convincing burden in its findings | Trial court failed to state the burden and thus erred | Presumption of regularity applies; no record evidence that incorrect standard was used; petitioner bore and met burden | Court affirmed: appellant failed to overcome presumption that the correct burden was applied |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of Bovett, 33 Ohio St.3d 102 (establishes petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence failure to support and lack of justifiable cause)
- In re Adoption of M.B., 131 Ohio St.3d 186 (trial court discretion to decide whether a financial contribution constitutes maintenance and support; review standard clarified)
- In re Adoption of P.A.C., 126 Ohio St.3d 236 (adoption exceptions are strictly construed due to parental constitutional interests)
- In re Hockstock, 98 Ohio St.3d 238 (natural parents’ fundamental liberty interest in care and custody of children)
- In re Adoption of Greer, 70 Ohio St.3d 293 (orders under R.C. 3107.07 are final appealable orders)