2020 Ohio 6785
Ohio2020Background:
- E.S., mother of twin boys, lost physical custody to maternal aunt and uncle after they obtained temporary and then final custody in juvenile court; aunt and uncle later petitioned to adopt the twins in probate court.
- In probate adoption proceedings, E.S. requested appointed counsel as an indigent parent; the probate court denied the request and proceeded with a hearing.
- E.S. appealed the denial; the Fifth District affirmed, holding equal-protection and due-process claims inapplicable to privately initiated adoptions and that parents in adoption and juvenile permanent-custody proceedings are not similarly situated.
- The Ohio Supreme Court accepted review, sua sponte asked for briefing on whether the denial was a final, appealable order, and considered whether indigent parents in probate adoptions have a right to appointed counsel.
- The Court held the denial of appointed counsel was a final, appealable order and, on equal-protection grounds, ruled that indigent parents in probate adoption proceedings are entitled to appointed counsel; judgment reversed and remanded.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (E.S.) | Defendant's Argument (State/Adoptive Parents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the probate court’s denial of appointed counsel was a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(2) | Denial affects a substantial right (fundamental parental liberty) in a special proceeding and would foreclose effective review without immediate appeal | Denial was interlocutory; appeal after final judgment would provide an adequate remedy | Denial was a final, appealable order because it affected a substantial right (parental liberty) in a special proceeding |
| Whether Equal Protection applies (state action) to privately initiated adoption proceedings | Statutory scheme (granting appointed counsel in juvenile but not probate adoptions) is state action; only the state can extinguish parental rights, so constitutional protections apply | Adoption was privately initiated; Equal Protection concerns are inapplicable to private conduct | State action exists (legislative allocation of counsel and the court’s power to terminate parental rights), so Equal Protection applies |
| Whether indigent parents in probate adoptions are similarly situated to indigent parents in juvenile permanent-custody proceedings | Yes — both face involuntary, permanent termination of parental rights (same fundamental liberty interest) | No — different statutory schemes, purposes, and legal tests mean parents are not similarly situated | Parents in both settings are similarly situated for Equal Protection purposes |
| Appropriate level of scrutiny and constitutionality of treating the two classes differently (R.C. 2151.352 as applied) | Strict scrutiny applies because a fundamental right (parental relationship) is implicated; the underinclusive scheme fails and appointed counsel must be provided in probate adoptions | Rational-basis review should apply; managing taxpayer funds is a legitimate state interest supporting the statute | Strict scrutiny applies; the State offered no compelling interest narrowly served by denying counsel to indigent parents in probate adoptions — statute is underinclusive as applied; indigent parents must be provided counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (establishes parental rights as a fundamental liberty interest)
- M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1996) (only the State can extinguish parental rights; state action in termination proceedings)
- Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., Inc., 500 U.S. 614 (U.S. 1991) (constitutional protections apply only to state action)
- Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., 457 U.S. 922 (U.S. 1982) (tests for characterizing government conduct as state action)
- Guccione v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 17 Ohio St.3d 88 (Ohio 1985) (denial of counsel/attorney disqualification treated as immediately appealable in certain contexts)
- Bell v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 67 Ohio St.3d 60 (Ohio 1993) (an order affects a substantial right only if denial of immediate appeal would foreclose appropriate relief later)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (Ohio 1990) (recognizes parental right to custody as a fundamental liberty interest)