In re Adoption of M.G.
2015 Ohio 5185
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Mother Staci and father Aaron had a child (M.G.) in 2008; no court orders were ever entered for paternity, custody, support, or visitation because the parties and families agreed to avoid court.
- Guardianship to maternal grandmother existed 2008–2012; Staci married petitioner Bryce Garman in June 2013.
- Garman filed a step-parent adoption petition in December 2014 without Aaron’s consent, alleging Aaron failed without justifiable cause to provide support for the year before the petition (R.C. 3107.07(A)).
- Hearing evidence: Aaron made some informal payments (half the hospital bill), contributed to a savings account for M.G., was employed, and sought court-ordered rights/support at times but Staci repeatedly discouraged court involvement and limited/ultimately stopped visitation.
- Trial court found Aaron failed to support during the statutory year but provided a facially justifiable reason (mother declined/blocked support and interfered with the parent–child relationship); petitioner failed to prove lack of justifiable cause by clear and convincing evidence.
- Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the probate court’s credibility findings and conclusion were supported by competent, credible evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Aaron’s consent to the adoption could be excused under R.C. 3107.07(A) for failure to support for one year | Garman: Aaron failed to support M.G. for the requisite year and lacked justifiable cause, so his consent is not required | Aaron: He had facially justifiable reasons — mother declined/blocked support, interfered with visitation, and he attempted informal support; no court order due to mutual agreement | The court: Aaron failed to support for the year, but presented facially justifiable cause (mother declined support and interfered); Garman did not prove lack of justifiable cause by clear and convincing evidence, so consent required; adoption dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of Masa, 23 Ohio St.3d 163 (1986) (petitioner must prove failure to support and lack of justifiable cause by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Adoption of Bovett, 33 Ohio St.3d 102 (1987) (reiterating Masa standard)
- Haskins v. Bronzetti, 64 Ohio St.3d 202 (1992) (parents have duty to support children under common and statutory law)
- Meyer v. Meyer, 17 Ohio St.3d 222 (1985) (no entitlement to receive support payments absent a support order when none issued at custody award)
- In re Doe, 123 Ohio App.3d 505 (1997) (once nonconsenting parent articulates facially justifiable cause, burden of proof remains with petitioner)
- In re Adoption of Groh, 153 Ohio App.3d 414 (2003) (probate court’s justifiable-cause determinations will not be disturbed unless against manifest weight of the evidence)