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. (2000) and daughter M.G.B.-E. (2003); Father awarded visitation but Mother largely denied visitation after alleging sexual abuse by Father and his relatives in 2004–2006.
- Domestic relations court (Montgomery Cty.) ordered supervised/reestablished visitation contingent on family therapy in 2007 and again in 2008; parties never completed the therapy and the domestic relations case was dismissed for want of prosecution in 2008.
- Mother moved residences and changed contact information several times without notifying Father; she also changed the children’s surnames in a 2007 Highland County probate proceeding served by publication.
- Father made intermittent attempts to locate the children (online searches, attending sporting events in 2014–2015) but admitted no meaningful contact with either child since June 2006 and filed a motion to re-establish parenting time in May 2015.
- Stepfather filed adoption petitions in Clinton County Probate Court on May 18, 2015, alleging Father had failed without justifiable cause to provide more than de minimis contact during the year prior to the petitions.
- Probate court found by clear and convincing evidence (crediting Stepfather/Stepmother) that Father lacked more than de minimis contact in the relevant year and that the lack of contact was without justifiable cause; Father appealed and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Stepfather/Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probate court lacked jurisdiction because a domestic relations motion to re‑establish parenting time was pending | Father: pending domestic relations motion divests probate court of authority to proceed with adoption hearing | Stepfather: probate courts retain exclusive, original jurisdiction over adoptions; a visitation motion does not raise parentage or juvenile issues that require probate abstention | Held: Probate court had jurisdiction; pending visitation matter did not require abstention (Pushcar line inapplicable) |
| Whether Father failed to have more than de minimis contact in the year before the adoption petitions | Father: he made efforts over time (searches, attending events) and saw son at a few events; contact was not less than de minimis | Stepfather: father had no contact with daughter since 2006 and only fleeting, noncommunicative presence at a few athletic events with son — less than de minimis | Held: Court found, by clear and convincing evidence, Father had less than de minimis contact with both children |
| Whether Father’s lack of contact was without justifiable cause | Father: Mother’s interference (refusing visitation, moving, changing contact info, abuse allegations, police calls) justified his lack of contact | Stepfather: father failed to follow court-ordered therapy steps, did not pursue available alternative contacts (grandparents, email, mail), and long inaction showed lack of justification | Held: Court found Father’s lack of contact was not justified (manifest weight supports that finding) |
| Whether consent to adoption could be dispensed under R.C. 3107.07(A) | Father: claimed statutory exception should not apply because his failure was justified | Stepfather: statutory exception applies because clear and convincing evidence shows failure and no justifiable cause | Held: Consent was not required under R.C. 3107.07(A); adoption permitted to proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of Pushcar, 110 Ohio St.3d 332 (2006) (probate proceedings must refrain when juvenile court paternity/parenting issues are pending)
- In re Adoption of G.V., 126 Ohio St.3d 249 (2010) (clarifies Pushcar’s application to juvenile‑court parentage/parenting issues)
- In re Adoption of P.A.C., 126 Ohio St.3d 236 (2010) (related holding on probate abstention when juvenile parentage matters pending)
- In re Adoption of M.B., 131 Ohio St.3d 186 (2012) (sets standard for proving failure of contact/support by clear and convincing evidence under R.C. 3107.07)
- Holcomb v. Smith, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (1985) (custodial‑parent interference can constitute justifiable cause for noncustodial parent’s lack of contact)
- In re Adoption of Biddle, 168 Ohio St. 209 (1958) (probate courts retain jurisdiction to decide adoption even when custody matters are within continuing jurisdiction of another court)