In re adoption of N.D.D.
2019 Ohio 727
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- R.B.R. (appellant) is the biological father of N.D.D.; he was convicted of sexual offenses against his stepdaughter and is serving a lengthy prison term.
- Mother M.D. remarried K.D., who petitioned to adopt N.D.D.; M.D. consented to the adoption.
- K.D. invoked R.C. 3107.07(A) exceptions, arguing appellant failed without justifiable cause to provide more than de minimis contact or support in the year before the adoption petition; initial proceedings found appellant’s consent unnecessary.
- This Court previously held appellant had justifiable cause to avoid support (zero-support divorce decree) but affirmed that appellant lacked justifiable cause to maintain contact given his convictions; appellate review closed.
- A magistrate found adoption was in the child’s best interest after an in camera interview; appellant filed objections supported by a purported affidavit whose notarization predated the objections and duplicated a prior filing.
- The probate court rejected the affidavit as improperly sworn/fraudulent, limited review to legal objections without a transcript, independently applied R.C. 3107.161(B) factors, and granted the adoption; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | R.B.R.'s Argument | K.D.'s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probate court abused discretion by treating appellant's objections as unsupported affidavit and not conducting de novo factual review | Appellant claimed his objections were properly sworn; the affidavit should be accepted and factual findings reviewed de novo | Probate court argued the affidavit was not properly notarized (dated earlier and reused) and thus could not substitute for a transcript; review limited to legal issues | Court held affidavit was invalid/not evidentiary; magistrate’s factual findings stand absent transcript; no abuse in limiting review |
| Whether appellant was denied due process by court’s treatment of affidavit | Appellant claimed denial of meaningful opportunity to be heard and de novo review | K.D./court argued appellant received notice and meaningful hearings; affidavit rules are clear and were applied | Court held no due process violation—appellant had notice and opportunity; procedural rules properly enforced |
| Whether adoption was in child’s best interest under R.C. 3107.161 | Appellant urged maintaining biological-parent status and that denial would preserve status quo | K.D. argued adoption provides permanency, stability; child bonds with petitioner and wishes adoption; appellant long absent and convicted of sexual offenses | Court held probate court did not abuse discretion; adoption is in child’s best interest after weighing statutory factors |
| Whether appellant’s criminal appeals affected best-interest/reunification prospects | Appellant argued ongoing appeals could alter his status and affect reunification | K.D. noted appeals were closed/declined; long prison sentence and convictions make safe reunification unlikely | Court found appeals did not create realistic prospect of reunification; convictions weigh against reunification and support adoption |
Key Cases Cited
- Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1981) (due process is a flexible concept varying with context and interests at stake)
- In re B.M.S., 192 Ohio App.3d 394 (10th Dist. 2011) (standard for abuse of discretion in adoption–best-interest review)
- In re Adoption of Ridenour, 61 Ohio St.3d 319 (Ohio 1991) (adoption review abuse-of-discretion standard)
- State v. Hand, 149 Ohio St.3d 94 (Ohio 2016) (Ohio and federal due process clauses provide equivalent protections)
- Pollock v. Brigano, 130 Ohio App.3d 505 (12th Dist. 1998) (requirements for valid affidavit)
- In re Disqualification of Pokorny, 74 Ohio St.3d 1238 (Ohio 1992) (an affidavit must on its face show proper oath before an officer to be valid)