2020 Ohio 841
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Stepfather petitioned to adopt T.U.; probate court held a July 2, 2019 hearing on whether the natural father's consent was required under R.C. 3107.07(A).
- Father and mother had post-divorce agreement (circa 2012) by which father waived visitation/contact and mother agreed to a zero-dollar child-support order (mother also waived arrears).
- Father had no meaningful contact with the child from 2012 until shortly before the adoption petition; he sent a certified letter in April 2019 and some cards but otherwise had not communicated or provided financial support.
- The probate court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that father failed without justifiable cause both to provide more than de minimis contact and to provide support, and therefore his consent was not required.
- On appeal father argued (1) compliance with the zero-dollar support order met his support obligation and so his consent was required, and (2) the no-contact/domestic-relations order justified his lack of contact. The Sixth District affirmed the probate court, but held the trial court erred on the support point (harmless error) and affirmed based on lack of justifiable contact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Stepfather) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether paying no child support under a zero-dollar court order means father satisfied the support requirement so his consent was required | Compliance with the zero-dollar support order satisfies the statutory support requirement; consent still required | Father failed to provide more than de minimis support in substance; consent not required | Court: Father did comply with the zero-dollar order (citing In re Adoption of B.I.), so the trial court erred on the support finding, but error was harmless because of the contact ground—reversed on support but adoption allowed to proceed without consent based on contact failure |
| Whether a court-ordered or voluntarily-agreed no-contact provision justifies lack of "more than de minimis" contact | The existing no-contact/domestic-relations order (or agreement) justified father’s lack of contact | Father voluntarily relinquished contact in exchange for financial benefit; voluntary forbearance is not a justifiable cause | Court: Father’s lack of contact was unjustified; a voluntarily agreed no-contact provision does not provide justifiable cause—affirmed on this ground |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of B.I., 131 N.E.3d 28 (Sup. Ct. Ohio 2019) (compliance with a zero-dollar child-support order satisfies the support requirement in R.C. 3107.07(A))
- In re Adoption of P.L.H., 91 N.E.3d 698 (Sup. Ct. Ohio 2017) (exceptions to parental-consent rule are strictly construed to protect biological parents)
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 376 N.E.2d 578 (Ohio 1978) (definition of clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard)
- Cross v. Ledford, 120 N.E.2d 118 (Ohio 1954) (elements for appellate review of sufficiency/credibility issues cited for clear-and-convincing proof)
- In re Adoption of Bovett, 515 N.E.2d 919 (Ohio 1987) (burden-shifting framework re: showing lack of justifiable cause)
- State v. Thompkins, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard)
- In re Adoption of McDermitt, 408 N.E.2d 680 (Ohio 1980) (R.C. 3107.07(A) is disjunctive: failure to support or failure to communicate each can obviate consent)