In re Adoption of R.M.T.
2017 Ohio 8639
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant (biological father, incarcerated) appealed a probate court decision ruling his consent was not required for the adoption of his child, R.M.T. by the child's stepfather (appellee).
- Appellee filed an adoption petition alleging no putative father registration and that appellant failed to communicate with or support the child in the year preceding the petition.
- A paternity test established appellant as the biological father; a hearing addressed whether appellant had justifiable cause for limited contact/support.
- Appellant did not provide a transcript of the probate hearing on appeal; the appellate court therefore limited review to the record and presumed regularity of the proceedings.
- The probate court found appellant failed, without justifiable cause, to have more than de minimis contact in the year before the petition and denied requests for appointed counsel and a transcript at state expense.
- The Twelfth District affirmed: (1) consent not required, (2) denial of appointed counsel proper, and (3) denial of free transcript proper.
Issues
| Issue | Wells' Argument | J.T.'s / Trial Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether father's consent was required for adoption | Wells said he had justifiable cause because he tried to contact the child by phone and mail | Court found father failed without justifiable cause to have > de minimis contact in the year before the petition | Affirmed: consent not required because father failed to have more than de minimis contact and appellant did not rebut factual finding on appeal |
| Whether appellant was entitled to trial transcript at state's expense | Wells sought a free transcript for appeal | Adoption is a civil matter; indigent civil litigants are not entitled to free transcripts; App.R.9 provides alternatives | Affirmed: denial proper; App.R.9 narrative statement is the alternative |
| Whether court erred by not appointing counsel to review telephone records | Wells argued appointed counsel would have aided his defense and obtained records | No statutory or constitutional right to appointed counsel in probate adoption proceedings; R.C. juvenile statute not applicable | Affirmed: no entitlement to appointed counsel |
| Whether court erred by denying appointment of counsel at state expense generally | Wells argued lack of counsel prejudiced his defense | Indigent parents in adoption proceedings are not entitled to appointed counsel; incarceration does not change rule | Affirmed: denial proper; Lassiter and Ohio precedent support no automatic right to counsel in adoption context |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (recognizes parental rights as fundamental and explains high statutory protections before termination of parental rights)
- Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (appellate rule: when no transcript furnished, appellate court must presume regularity of trial court proceedings)
- Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services of Durham Cty., 452 U.S. 18 (no constitutional right to appointed counsel in parental-rights termination proceedings)
- State ex rel. Motley v. Capers, 23 Ohio St.3d 56 (App.R.9 narrative statement is an adequate alternative when appellant cannot afford transcript)