2020 Ohio 4184
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Child O.J.B. born Aug. 2017; maternal grandparents obtained temporary juvenile-court custody, then legal custody in Aug. 2018 after mother did not appear at the hearing.
- Grandparents petitioned to adopt on July 1, 2019; probate court bifurcated hearings and held a parental-consent hearing in Nov. 2019.
- Evidence at the consent hearing: one telephone call from mother to the child between June 2018–July 2019; aborted/video-call attempts; text/email exchanges with grandmother; no money, clothing, or other support sent by mother during the look‑back year.
- Mother lived in Hawaii for much of the period and argued she was unable to contact or support the child and that grandfather blocked contact; she also cited limited finances and childcare obligations.
- Probate court found mother had failed to provide more than de minimis contact and failed to provide maintenance/support in the year before the petition, without justifiable cause, and ordered that her consent was not required.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | Grandparents' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mother's consent to adoption was excused under R.C. 3107.07(A) for failing to provide more than de minimis contact | Mother claimed "significant" contact (phone/video attempts), argued travel to Hawaii and grandfather's interference made contact impracticable | Contact was sporadic (one actual call), mother maintained limited contact with grandmother but not the child, grandparents did not prohibit contact | Held: Mother failed to show more than de minimis contact; probate court's finding affirmed (abuse-of-discretion standard) |
| Whether mother's consent was excused for failure to provide maintenance/support in the year before petition | Mother said she lacked funds, had newborn care duties, and saved for travel to Ohio, so nonpayment was justifiable | Mother worked at times and had means to provide some support; no court order excusing support; she voluntarily chose not to pay | Held: Mother failed to provide any support and offered no justifiable cause; probate court's determination not against manifest weight |
| Whether grandparents significantly interfered with mother's ability to contact the child | Mother asserted grandfather blocked contact (different timelines offered) | Grandparents testified they did not bar contact; mother and grandmother themselves attempted arrangements; mother stayed in contact with grandmother into mid-2019 | Held: Record does not show substantial interference; probate court did not lose its way in rejecting interference claim |
| Standard of review for the probate court's determinations | (n/a) Mother preserved arguments for appeal | (n/a) Grandparents urged deference to trial court findings | Held: Trial court's factual finding re contact/support reviewed for abuse of discretion; justifiable-cause finding reviewed for manifest weight of the evidence; findings affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of McDermitt, 63 Ohio St.2d 301 (1980) (construing the disjunctive "or" in the statutory consent exemption)
- In re Adoption of Masa, 23 Ohio St.3d 163 (1986) (standard for manifest‑weight review of justifiable‑cause finding)
- In re Adoption of Bovett, 33 Ohio St.3d 102 (1987) (consider the period "as a whole" when assessing justifiable cause for nonsupport)
- In re Adoption of Lay, 25 Ohio St.3d 41 (1986) (voluntariness/intent to not pay is a factor in nonsupport analyses)
- In re Adoption of M.B., 131 Ohio St.3d 186 (2012) (probate court has discretion in determining whether parental contact/support meets statutory standard)
- In re Adoption of B.I., 157 Ohio St.3d 29 (2019) (effect of judicial "no‑support order" on statutory obligation to support)