In re Adoption of R.M.T.
2018 Ohio 1691
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Appellee (stepfather, J.T.) filed to adopt R.M.T. in 2015; appellant P.M.W. is the biological father and incarcerated.
- Probate court bifurcated proceedings: first addressed whether appellant's consent was required; paternity was established and the court found consent excused for lack of more-than-de-minimis contact.
- This court previously affirmed that appellant's consent was not required (In re Adoption of R.M.T., 2017-Ohio-8639).
- A December 6, 2017 final hearing was held on whether the adoption was in the child’s best interest; the probate court granted the adoption and entered a final decree that day.
- Appellant moved postjudgment for appointment of counsel on appeal, a free transcript, and a stay; the probate court denied all three motions.
- On appeal this court affirmed most rulings but reversed and vacated the adoption decree because the probate court failed to provide the statutorily required 20-day notice of the December 6, 2017 best-interest hearing and remanded for a new best-interest hearing with proper notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (P.M.W.) | Defendant's Argument (J.T.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appointment of counsel on appeal | Indigent father entitled to court-appointed appellate counsel | No right to appointed counsel in stepparent adoption (civil) | Denied — no constitutional right to appointed counsel in this adoption context (affirmed) |
| Transcript at state's expense | Entitled to free hearing transcript for appeal | Civil litigant not entitled to free transcript; App.R.9 alternative available | Denied — civil litigants not entitled to free transcripts; App.R.9 narrative is alternative (affirmed) |
| Stay of final decree pending appeal | Trial court should have stayed decree while appeal pending | No specific argument preserved in brief; court need not search record | Assignment disregarded for failure to brief; no relief granted (affirmed) |
| Adequacy of notice and existence of best-interest hearing | Court did not give required notice; hearing was not meaningful; due process violated | Court held a December 6 hearing and entered a decree; appellant had previous proceedings and consent was excused | Reversed in part — 20-day notice requirement under R.C. 3107.11(A) was not met; adoption decree vacated and remanded for a new best-interest hearing with proper notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (recognizing no absolute right to appointed counsel in every parental-rights termination proceeding)
- State ex rel. Motley v. Capers, 23 Ohio St.3d 56 (App.R.9(C) narrative statement is an acceptable alternative to a transcript in civil appeals)
- In re Walters, 112 Ohio St.3d 315 (2007) (trial court must hear evidence on consent and best interest; notice required to biological parent when hearings separated)
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (parental rights are fundamental liberty interests)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (parental custody is a fundamental liberty interest)
- In re Adoption of Jordan, 72 Ohio App.3d 638 (natural parent retains interest to be heard on best-interest issue despite excused consent)
- In re Adoption of Groh, 153 Ohio App.3d 414 (natural parent's opportunity to show adoption is not in child's best interest)