2019 Ohio 449
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Mother (E.S.) is the biological parent of two children placed in the legal custody of their aunt and uncle (C.F. & D.F.) after a juvenile-court agreed judgment in 2016.
- Aunt and uncle filed private petitions for adoption in probate court in April 2018, alleging parents failed to maintain more than de minimis contact or support for the year prior.
- Mother filed an affidavit of indigency and requested appointed counsel seven days before the scheduled hearing; the probate court denied the request.
- At the August 29, 2018 hearing Mother appeared, confirmed she was prepared to proceed, testified, and cross-examined witnesses; the magistrate continued the matter for further proceedings.
- Mother appealed the denial of appointed counsel, arguing violations of due process and equal protection; the appellate court reviewed Mathews v. Eldridge balancing and other authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Aunt/Uncle / Probate Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process required appointment of counsel in a privately-initiated adoption | Indigent mother facing loss of parental rights is entitled to counsel under due process | No constitutional right to appointed counsel in private adoption; Mathews balancing does not weigh in favor of appointment here | Denied — no due-process right to appointed counsel; Mathews factors weighed against appointment |
| Whether equal protection requires appointed counsel in private adoption because indigent parents get counsel in state-initiated dependency/permanent-custody cases | Indigent parents in private adoption are similarly situated to parents in R.C. 2151.353 cases; equal protection requires parity | Adoption and dependency/permanent custody are distinct; private petition = no state action invoking equal protection | Denied — no equal protection violation; parents in private adoption not similarly situated to state-initiated cases |
| Whether probate courts nonetheless have authority to appoint counsel despite constitutional analysis | Probate courts can appoint counsel to protect due process | Appointment is unnecessary where due process and equal protection do not require it; no error in denying appointment here | Denied — court found no constitutional or legal error in refusing to appoint counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (balancing test for procedural due process)
- Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614 (equal-protection requires state action)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (equal protection: similarly situated principle)
- In re Adoption of Zschach, 75 Ohio St.3d 648 (Ohio procedures adequately protect parental rights in adoption)
- In re Adoption of J.L.M.-L., 148 Ohio St.3d 1446 (adoption and permanent custody are distinct under Ohio law)
- Conley v. Shearer, 64 Ohio St.3d 284 (equal-protection claim requires unconstitutional state classification)