In re Adoption of S.M.H.
2014 Ohio 45
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Child S.M.H., born 2002, lived with mother F.H.; petitioner G.H. (mother’s husband) filed for adoption in Feb 2013 when the child was 11.
- Biological father R.S. had no contact with the child after she was four months old; a 2003 criminal menacing-by-stalking conviction against R.S. resulted in a municipal-court no-contact order directed at the mother; a five-year civil protection order for the mother also existed.
- Child support was terminated in Feb 2003 at the mother’s request (to avoid revealing her address); R.S. did not contest that termination and did not provide support thereafter.
- R.S. testified he believed the protection orders barred him from contacting both the mother and child and that he could not locate them; he did not seek court clarification, modification of the orders, or visitation through juvenile court.
- Mother, petitioner, and witnesses testified the mother and petitioner remained findable (mutual friends, church listing, White Pages, public records) and that mother would not have opposed supervised visitation.
- Probate magistrate and court found R.S. lacked credible justification for his years-long absence; court concluded R.S.’s consent to the adoption was not required and entered final decree of adoption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.S. failed without justifiable cause to have more than de minimis contact for the year before the adoption petition | Adoption petitioner: R.S. had no contact and did not justify the absence | R.S.: protection orders and inability to locate mother/child justified noncontact | Held: Court found failure to contact proven and R.S.’s stated reasons not credible; no justifiable cause |
| Whether R.S.’s criminal and civil protection orders legally prevented contact with the child | Petitioner: Orders did not apply to the child and did not justify noncontact | R.S.: believed orders barred contacting both mother and child for ten years | Held: Orders, on their face, did not apply to the child; R.S.’s belief was unreasonable and not credible |
| Whether R.S.’s own misconduct can excuse his absence | Petitioner: Misconduct cannot justify continued noncontact; he could have sought remedies | R.S.: contended fear from orders and inability to find child excused him | Held: Court held he cannot rely on his own misconduct and could have sought court relief or visitation |
| Whether evidence met the clear-and-convincing standard to dispense with consent | Petitioner: Clear-and-convincing evidence supports finding no justifiable cause | R.S.: Insufficient proof that lack of contact was unjustified | Held: Court: findings supported by clear-and-convincing evidence; consent not required |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of M.B., 131 Ohio St.3d 186, 2012-Ohio-236, 963 N.E.2d 142 (Ohio 2012) (probate court has broad discretion on factual determinations under R.C. 3107.07)
- In re Adoption of Masa, 23 Ohio St.3d 163, 492 N.E.2d 140 (Ohio 1986) (question whether justifiable cause exists is for the probate court and reviewed for manifest weight)