In re Adoption of M.G.B.-E.
2016 Ohio 7912
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Parents divorced in 2004; mother received custody of son R.S.B.-E. (b. 2000) and daughter M.G.B.-E. (b. 2003); father awarded visitation but mother curtailed/denied visitation beginning 2004–2006 after alleging sexual abuse.
- Domestic relations court ordered supervised/reinstated parenting time only after family counseling (Sept. 12, 2007 order) and directed father to contact specified therapists; parties failed to set up counseling and the domestic relations case was dismissed for want of prosecution in Sept. 2008.
- Father had essentially no contact with daughter since June 2006 and minimal contact with son (sporadic attendance at athletic events in 2014–2015 without meaningful communication). Father did not file parenting-time motions from 2008–May 2015.
- Stepfather filed adoption petitions for both children on May 18, 2015, alleging father had failed without justifiable cause to provide more than de minimis contact for at least one year before the petitions, making father’s consent unnecessary under R.C. 3107.07(A).
- Probate court held a hearing, found by clear and convincing evidence that father had less than de minimis contact in the year before the petitions and that the failure was without justifiable cause (weighing father’s failure to arrange the ordered therapy and long inaction), and authorized the adoptions. Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s argument | Stepfather/Mother’s argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probate court lacked jurisdiction to decide consent while a parenting-time motion was pending in another court | Father: pending motion in domestic relations court divested probate court of jurisdiction; probate court should defer | Stepfather: probate court has original, exclusive jurisdiction over adoption and pending visitation matters do not divest it | Court: probate court had jurisdiction; Pushcar line concerns paternity issues, not routine visitation motions; overruled assignment |
| Whether father’s contact in the year before the petitions was "more than de minimis" | Father: he attempted to locate and contact the children (sightings, emails, online searches) and attended events in 2014–2015 | Stepfather: father had no meaningful contact since 2006; isolated sightings and shouts at events are de minimis | Court: found father’s contact was less than de minimis and affirmed probate court’s factual finding |
| Whether father’s failure to contact was for a justifiable cause | Father: mother interfered (refused visitation, moved without notice, changed phone numbers, alleged abuse, police contact) | Stepfather: father failed to pursue court-ordered therapy, did little to use available means (grandparents, email, church) to contact children | Court: father's failure to arrange counseling and long inaction meant lack of justifiable cause; probate court’s finding not against manifest weight |
| Whether standard of proof (clear and convincing) was satisfied | Father: contested evidence credibility and emphasized mother’s interference | Stepfather: presented documentary and testimonial evidence of long absence and father’s failure to act | Court: clear-and-convincing standard met; probate court’s credibility determinations upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of Pushcar, 110 Ohio St.3d 332 (Ohio 2006) (probate courts must not proceed when paternity/parentage resolution is pending in juvenile court)
- In re G.T.B., 128 Ohio St.3d 502 (Ohio 2011) (clarifies Pushcar scope; Pushcar concerns parentage issues)
- In re Adoption of M.B., 131 Ohio St.3d 186 (Ohio 2012) (sets burden and two-step framework under R.C. 3107.07(A): de minimis contact and justifiable cause, proven by clear and convincing evidence)
- Holcomb v. Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (Ohio 1985) (noncustodial parent may show justifiable cause where custodial parent significantly interfered with communication)
- In re Adoption of Biddle, 168 Ohio St. 209 (Ohio 1958) (probate courts have original and exclusive jurisdiction over adoptions)