2020 Ohio 224
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Biological parents: Cody R. Schoonover (father) and Kayla N. Sealey (mother); Kayla married Bradley Sealey in July 2017 and Bradley petitioned to adopt child L.S. on October 24, 2018.
- Last in-person supervised visitation between Schoonover and L.S. occurred September 23, 2017; Schoonover admitted no calls, texts, letters, gifts, or visits in the year before the adoption petition.
- Schoonover filed a contempt motion in the Juvenile Division in December 2017 (Case No. 20144197); Juvenile Court later issued a temporary supervised-visitation order permitting visits at Harmony House, which Schoonover did not exercise.
- Schoonover was incarcerated in April 2018 and entered a rehabilitation program May–August 2018; he admitted he did not contact L.S. while incarcerated or in rehab.
- Trial court denied Schoonover’s request to take judicial notice of the content of the Juvenile Court file (but considered the existence of the case and admitted the Juvenile Court judgment entry); court found Schoonover failed to have more than de minimis contact during the year before the petition and that no justifiable cause excused that failure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Schoonover) | Defendant's Argument (Bradley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the probate court erred by refusing to take judicial notice of the Juvenile Court file content | Trial court should take judicial notice of the Juvenile Court file (showing active proceedings and father’s filings during the statutory year) | Judicial notice of another case’s file content is improper; at most the court can notice the existence of related docket entries | Court properly refused to take judicial notice of the other case’s content; it may notice existence of prior litigation but not the truth of evidentiary matters in that file |
| Whether Schoonover’s filings in Juvenile Court (e.g., contempt motion) constitute "more than de minimis contact" under R.C. 3107.07(A) within the year before the adoption petition | Filing motions in Juvenile Court during the year shows active involvement and should count as more than de minimis contact | Filing court papers is contact with the court, not the child; there was no communication or contact with L.S. during the statutory year | Filing motions is not per se "more than de minimis contact" with the child; court found Schoonover had no more than de minimis contact in the year before the petition |
| Whether Schoonover had justifiable cause for failing to have more than de minimis contact during the statutory year | Incarceration, rehabilitation, prior interference by mother, and ongoing Juvenile Court proceedings justified lack of contact | Schoonover made no real efforts to contact the child (no calls, letters, gifts) and did not exercise the supervised visits available; incarceration/rehab did not preclude other forms of contact | Trial court’s finding that there was no justifiable cause is supported by the evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of Masa, 23 Ohio St.3d 163 (parental rights are fundamental)
- Indus. Risk Insurers v. Lorenz Equip. Co., 635 N.E.2d 14 (a court may take judicial notice of its docket but not the truth of matters in other litigation)
- Pollard v. Elber, 123 N.E.3d 359 (a court generally cannot judicially notice the content of prior proceedings in another case; may note existence of prior litigation)
- In re Adoption of M.B., 963 N.E.2d 142 (two-step R.C. 3107.07(A) analysis: determine failure to provide more than de minimis contact, then assess justifiable cause)
- In re Adoption of S.S., 101 N.E.3d 527 (parental consent ordinarily required for adoption)
- In re Adoption of C.N.A., 108 N.E.3d 553 (standard for assessing whether interference/other circumstances justify lack of contact)