In re Adoption of N.T.R.
2016 Ohio 3427
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Appellant R.B.R. (father) and M.D. divorced in 2013; M.D. obtained sole custody of their child N.R.; M.D. later married K.D. and the three lived together.
- R.B.R. is incarcerated (70 years to life) following convictions unrelated to this adoption proceeding.
- K.D. petitioned to adopt N.R.; M.D. consented. Petition alleged R.B.R. had, for at least one year prior to filing, failed without justifiable cause to (1) provide more than de minimis contact and (2) provide maintenance/support, under R.C. 3107.07(A).
- A magistrate found both statutory grounds satisfied; appellant objected but did not file a transcript or affidavit of the magistrate hearing.
- The probate court adopted the magistrate's factual findings but rested its ruling solely on the ground that R.B.R. failed without justifiable cause to provide support, and therefore his consent was not required.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the zero-support order in the divorce decree constituted justifiable cause for nonpayment of support and remanded for the probate court to decide only whether lack of contact was justifiable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether father's consent to adoption was excused under R.C. 3107.07(A) for failure to provide support | K.D./M.D.: R.B.R. failed without justifiable cause to provide maintenance/support for the year before filing | R.B.R.: Divorce decree ordered zero support; that order provides justifiable cause for nonpayment | Court: Zero support order is justifiable cause; probate court's finding of no justifiable cause was against manifest weight — reversed as to support ground |
| Whether father's consent was excused for lack of more-than-de-minimis contact for the statutory period | K.D./M.D.: Father lacked sufficient contact for the relevant year | R.B.R.: (raised objections) — not resolved below | Court: Probate court did not rule on contact; remanded for determination of justifiable cause as to contact |
| Whether appellate review is limited by appellant's failure to provide hearing transcript | K.D./M.D.: Magistrate findings stand as factual basis | R.B.R.: Failed to provide transcript/affidavit supporting factual objections | Court: Without transcript/affidavit, appellate review is limited to whether law was correctly applied to magistrate's factual findings |
| Whether probate judge was biased by father’s incarceration or convictions | R.B.R.: Alleged bias and constitutional violations | K.D./M.D.: No evidence of bias; rulings are legal, subject to appeal | Court: No evidence of bias; presumption of impartiality stands; assignments of bias overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (recognizes parental fundamental liberty interest)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (heightened protections required before terminating parental rights)
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (1997) (permanent termination of parental rights likened to death penalty; parents entitled to protections)
- In re Adoption of Sunderhaus, 63 Ohio St.3d 127 (1992) (exceptions to parental consent must be strictly construed)
- In re Adoption of G.V., 126 Ohio St.3d 249 (2010) (same: adoption exceptions strictly construed)
- In re Adoption of M.B., 131 Ohio St.3d 186 (2012) (two-step R.C. 3107.07(A) analysis: (1) factual finding of failure, (2) inquiry into justifiable cause)
- In re Greer, 70 Ohio St.3d 293 (1994) (finding that an R.C. 3107.07 order is a final, appealable order)