In re Adoption of N.T.R.
2017 Ohio 265
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant R.B.R. is the biological father of N.T.R.; he was convicted of sexually abusing his stepdaughter (K.R.) and is serving a lengthy prison sentence.
- After divorce, mother M.D. obtained sole custody; M.D., her husband K.D. (appellee), N.T.R., and K.R. live together.
- Appellee K.D. filed to adopt N.T.R., alleging under R.C. 3107.07(A) that R.B.R. failed for the year prior to the petition to provide more than de minimis contact and support.
- A magistrate and then the probate court found R.B.R. had no contact for the statutory year; on remand following a prior appeal the court considered whether the failure to contact was without justifiable cause.
- The trial court concluded the lack of contact was not justifiable because it resulted from R.B.R.’s own criminal conduct (the sexual abuse) and related incarceration; the Tenth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parental consent is unnecessary under R.C. 3107.07(A) due to >1 year of no more-than-de-minimis contact | Petitioner (K.D.): proved by clear and convincing evidence that R.B.R. had zero contact for the statutory year | R.B.R.: conceded no contact but argued interference/protective order and incarceration justify absence | Held: petitioner proved failure to maintain contact; court found no justifiable cause because appellant’s own criminal acts caused the situation |
| Whether appellant had justifiable cause for lack of contact (burden allocation) | K.D.: burden to show lack of justifiable cause by clear and convincing evidence; court may consider underlying reasons | R.B.R.: argued court shifted burden to him to prove justification and innocence | Held: court properly required petitioner to prove lack of justifiable cause; considering appellant’s voluntary criminal conduct as the reason was permissible and did not impermissibly shift burden |
| Whether incarceration or prison no-contact order alone constitutes justifiable cause | K.D.: incarceration/no-contact stemming from appellant’s acts is not justifiable cause | R.B.R.: inability to contact due to prison orders and mother’s interference justified absence | Held: incarceration or protective/no-contact orders resulting from the parent’s own misconduct do not constitute justifiable cause |
| Whether trial court’s finding was supported by clear and convincing evidence / manifest weight | K.D.: evidence and judge’s factual findings support the determination | R.B.R.: decision was against manifest weight/violated constitutional rights/was prejudiced by incarceration | Held: appellate court found no abuse of discretion or manifest miscarriage of justice and affirmed the probate court’s ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental rights are fundamental)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (procedural protections for parental rights)
- In re Adoption of M.B., 131 Ohio St.3d 186 (2012) (two-step R.C. 3107.07(A) analysis: failure to contact then justifiable cause)
- In re Adoption of G.V., 126 Ohio St.3d 249 (2010) (parental consent required generally; exceptions strictly construed)
- In re Adoption of Masa, 23 Ohio St.3d 163 (1986) (justifiable-cause determinations reviewed for manifest weight)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
- In re Adoption of Bovett, 33 Ohio St.3d 102 (1987) (burden remains on petitioner even after parent shows facially justifiable cause)