In re Adoption of S.J.M.H.
2014 Ohio 3565
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Child born in 2005 to appellant father and mother; father was incarcerated in 2007 after convictions for kidnapping, forcible rape, and felonious assault involving the mother and another victim.
- Mother remarried in 2011; stepfather filed to adopt the minor daughter in February 2013; mother consented to the adoption.
- Petition alleged father’s consent not required under R.C. 3107.07(A) because he failed to provide maintenance/support and more-than-de-minimis contact for the year before the petition.
- Father, incarcerated at Warren Correctional Institution, received notice, contested the adoption, filed procedural objections, and submitted affidavits and correspondence but did not appear at the evidentiary hearing.
- Magistrate found by clear and convincing evidence that father provided no support and no more-than-de-minimis contact in the relevant year and offered no justifiable cause; probate court overruled father’s objections and adopted the magistrate’s decision.
- Father appealed raising procedural and evidentiary challenges and contested the finding that his consent was unnecessary; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Probate Court/Mother/Stepfather) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether father was entitled to a copy of the adoption petition | Father said court failed to provide petition, violating R.C. 3107.05(A) and due process | Statutory notice of filing, hearing date, and reasons for nonconsent was provided as required | Overruled; notice was sufficient |
| Whether magistrate entries and judge’s stamped signature complied with Civ.R. 53 and Civ.R. 58 | Father argued stamped judge signature invalidated entries | Court noted objections were heard and final orders were personally signed by the judge; adoption of magistrate decision was in a signed entry | Overruled; procedural form did not invalidate the orders |
| Whether court abused discretion by not arranging alternative means for father’s appearance at hearing | Father argued court should have considered alternatives to transporting him from prison | Magistrate had permitted transport if father paid costs; father did not move for alternative arrangements and had opportunity to submit written materials | Overruled; no due-process violation shown and written submissions were considered |
| Whether clear-and-convincing evidence supported finding that father failed to provide support/contact without justifiable cause | Father submitted inmate affidavit, letters, photos, and argued attempts to communicate and support were rebuffed | Mother and stepfather testified to no support or meaningful contact during the statutory year; court lacked transcript of hearing from father to challenge factual findings | Overruled; appellate court found sufficient evidence and no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of Kuhlman, 99 Ohio App.3d 44 (1st Dist. 1994) (adoption proceedings governed by R.C. Chapter 3107)
- In re Adoption of Walters, 112 Ohio St.3d 315 (Ohio 2007) (adoption consent and procedure principles)
- In re Adoption of Greer, 70 Ohio St.3d 293 (Ohio 1994) (trial court finding that parental consent not required is final appealable order)
- In re Adoption of Bovett, 33 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1987) (clear-and-convincing standard in consent-phase determinations)
- In re Adoption of M.B., 131 Ohio St.3d 186 (Ohio 2012) (analysis of statutory elements and justifiable-cause inquiry under R.C. 3107.07)
- In re Adoption of Masa, 23 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 1986) (justifiable-cause and willful-failure are factual questions for probate court)
- In re Adoption of McDermitt, 63 Ohio St.2d 301 (Ohio 1980) (support and justifiable-cause are questions of fact for the probate court)