In RE ADOPTION OF M.G.B.-E. Et Al.
110 N.E.3d 1236
Ohio2018Background
- Stepfather petitioned in Clinton County Probate Court to adopt his wife’s two children; he alleged Father’s consent was unnecessary under R.C. 3107.07(A) because Father failed without justifiable cause to provide more than de minimis contact during the year before the petition.
- Father objected; concurrently he filed a motion in domestic-relations court to reestablish parenting time. The domestic-relations proceedings (including prior orders and a history of contentious litigation and allegations of abuse) remained pending.
- The probate court held a hearing and found Father’s consent unnecessary under R.C. 3107.07(A), emphasizing Father’s long lapse in pursuing court-ordered counseling and contact.
- The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the probate court’s decision and its jurisdiction to proceed despite the pending domestic-relations matter. Father appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court rejected Father’s broad rule that any pending parenting matter bars probate adoption proceedings, but held that a probate court must consider the existence of pending parenting proceedings when deciding whether an exception to parental consent (R.C. 3107.07(A)) applies.
- The case was reversed and remanded for the probate court to reconsider whether Father’s consent was required, taking into account his pending domestic-relations action to reestablish parenting time.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Stepfather’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a probate court must refrain from proceeding on an adoption if any parenting matter is pending in another court | Probate court must not proceed while any parenting issue is pending (broad rule) | Probate court may proceed; its exclusive jurisdiction over adoptions allows it to decide statutory prerequisites | Rejected broad rule; probate court need not always refrain — only required to consider pendency when relevant to R.C. 3107.07(A) determination |
| Whether the jurisdictional-priority rule bars the probate court because Father first filed in domestic-relations court | Father: his earlier filing invoked jurisdiction and should preclude probate action | Stepfather: probate and domestic-relations courts have separate, exclusive subject-matter jurisdictions; rule inapplicable | Jurisdictional-priority rule does not apply because the courts have different exclusive jurisdictions and proceedings are not the same |
| Whether Pushcar requires probate courts to defer whenever any parenting issue is pending | Father: Pushcar’s language compels deferral for pending parenting issues | Stepfather: Pushcar applies when parentage/paternity is unresolved and prevents probate from determining consent | Pushcar is limited: it applies where pending parentage prevents probate from determining statutory consent (e.g., paternity). It does not automatically bar probate in all parenting disputes |
| Whether a probate court must consider a parent’s pending motion to reestablish parenting time when assessing justifiable cause under R.C. 3107.07(A) | Father: his filing to reestablish parenting time is relevant and must be considered as evidence of efforts to preserve parental rights | Stepfather: resolution of the domestic-relations motion is irrelevant to whether Father failed to provide contact in the statutory year | Held: Probate courts must consider the existence and timing of pending parenting proceedings when evaluating justifiable cause under R.C. 3107.07(A); remanded for reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of Pushcar, 853 N.E.2d 647 (Ohio 2006) (probate must refrain when pending parentage matters prevent determination of consent)
- In re Adoption of P.A.C., 933 N.E.2d 236 (Ohio 2010) (discussing Pushcar in parentage context)
- In re Adoption of G.V., 933 N.E.2d 245 (Ohio 2010) (discussing Pushcar in parentage context)
- In re G.T.B., 947 N.E.2d 166 (Ohio 2011) (clarifies Pushcar focuses on parentage, not all parenting issues)
- State ex rel. Otten v. Henderson, 953 N.E.2d 809 (Ohio 2011) (jurisdictional-priority rule principles)
- State ex rel. Allen Cty. Children Servs. Bd. v. Mercer Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Probate Div., 81 N.E.3d 380 (Ohio 2016) (probate may proceed on adoption while juvenile custody matters pending when probate can determine statutory prerequisites)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 481 N.E.2d 613 (Ohio 1985) (petitioner bears burden to prove R.C. 3107.07(A) by clear and convincing evidence)