In re Adoption of M.F.
2014 Ohio 3801
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- M.F., born 2002, is the child of Richard F. (Father) and Linda H. (Mother); Mother later married David O. (Stepfather).
- Father and Mother divorced in 2006; Father was ordered to pay $476.38/month but ceased payments after August 19, 2011.
- Father was unemployed since 2006, exhausted assets (sale proceeds, unemployment, retirement) and relied on family support; he made efforts to find work but was unable to secure employment.
- Father was criminally charged for alleged sexual abuse of M.F.; an Allegheny County, PA bail condition (May 12, 2010) ordered no contact with the alleged victim and remained in effect until Father’s acquittal on January 13, 2013.
- Stepfather filed to adopt M.F. (Feb 14, 2013), alleging Father failed without justification to provide more than de minimis contact and to provide maintenance/support for the one-year period before the petition, as required by R.C. 3107.07.
- The probate magistrate found Father’s failures justified; the probate court adopted that decision. Stepfather appealed; the Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Father had justifiable cause for both lack of contact and nonpayment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father's consent to adoption was unnecessary under R.C. 3107.07(A) because he failed without justification to provide maintenance/support for the one-year look‑back | Stepfather: Father did not pay support during the relevant year and thus consent not required | Father: Financial incapacity (unemployment, exhausted assets) justified nonpayment | Held: Father's failure to pay was justified—he lacked ability to pay after exhausting resources; consent remained required |
| Whether Father's consent to adoption was unnecessary under R.C. 3107.07(A) because he failed without justification to have more than de minimis contact for the one-year look‑back | Stepfather: Father had no contact in the year before the petition, so consent not required | Father: A court-ordered no-contact condition and prompt post-acquittal attempts to reconnect justified the lack of contact | Held: The no-contact order legally prevented contact for 11 of the 12 months and Father made attempts after it lifted; failure to contact was justified |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (recognizes parental rights as fundamental liberty interests)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (requires heightened procedural protections before terminating parental rights)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (discusses fundamental parental rights in Ohio law)
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (describes termination of parental rights as severe deprivation requiring protections)
- In re Adoption of G.V., 126 Ohio St.3d 249 (adoption terminates fundamental parental rights; exceptions to consent must be strictly construed)
- In re Adoption of M.B., 131 Ohio St.3d 186 (standard for justifiable cause review is for probate court and not to be disturbed unless against manifest weight)
- In re Adoption of Masa, 23 Ohio St.3d 163 (parent's ability to pay is key in determining justifiable cause for nonpayment)
- In re Adoption of Bovett, 33 Ohio St.3d 102 (allocation of burdens: petitioner must prove failure; parent must show facially justifiable cause)