2016 Ohio 238
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- J.M. (Appellant), an incarcerated putative father, claims paternity of Z.G.A., born Feb. 24, 2015; mother surrendered the child for adoption three days later.
- Appellant attempted various filings in Delaware and Franklin counties and attempted to register with Ohio’s Putative Father Registry; his registration was stamped received April 1, 2015 but rejected as untimely under the 30‑day rule.
- A petition to adopt Z.G.A. was filed in Greene County on April 14, 2015; Appellant was not listed on filings and did not receive notice.
- On July 23, 2015 Appellant filed a request for paternity/genetic testing in Greene County; the probate court treated it as an objection to the adoption and denied intervention, finding his consent not required under R.C. 3107.07(B)(1) because he had not timely registered or otherwise established paternity before the adoption petition.
- Appellant appealed, arguing denial of due process and equal protection for lack of notice and inability to intervene; the appellate court reviewed whether Appellant preserved any constitutional challenge and whether the record supported relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellant’s consent was required because he attempted but failed to register with the Putative Father Registry before the adoption petition | Appellant argues his attempted registration and other efforts entitled him to notice/intervention and thus his consent should be required | Respondents/State argue Appellant did not meet statutory requirements (no timely registration or prior judicial/administrative establishment of paternity) | Court held consent not required: Appellant failed to register within statutory period and had not otherwise established paternity before the adoption petition was filed |
| Whether the 30‑day putative‑father registration deadline (R.C. 3107.07(B)(1)) is unconstitutional as applied to Appellant | Appellant contends denying relief despite his attempted registration violated due process/equal protection | State argues appellant forfeited any constitutional challenge by not raising it below and the registry scheme is constitutional under precedent | Court declined to decide the as‑applied constitutional challenge: appellant waived the issue by not raising it in trial court and failed to put supporting evidence into the trial record |
| Whether appellate court may consider new evidence/documents about appellant’s pre‑petition efforts | Appellant relies on documents attached to his appellate brief to prove attempts to register and notice efforts | State argues new evidence cannot be considered on appeal; trial court record controls | Court refused to consider the unfiled/unverified documents submitted for the first time on appeal and reviewed only the trial‑court record |
| Whether putative‑father registry scheme denies fundamental parental rights without adequate process | Appellant asserts registry procedure allowed adoption without his notice, violating fundamental parental rights | State cites Supreme Court and Ohio precedent upholding putative‑father registries as constitutional mechanisms balancing interests | Court reiterated existing precedent that registry scheme is constitutionally permissible and that putative fathers have lesser protection absent compliance with statutory procedures |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of Masa, 23 Ohio St.3d 163 (recognizes parental rights as fundamental and the gravity of terminating them)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (due‑process protections required when terminating parental rights)
- In re Adoption of P.A.C., 126 Ohio St.3d 236 (Ohio 2010) (upholding use of putative‑father registries; discusses balancing putative fathers’ interests and children’s need for permanency)
- Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1983) (sanctioned constitutionality of putative‑father registries for fathers lacking established parent‑child relationships)
- In re B.C., 141 Ohio St.3d 55 (Ohio 2014) (parental‑rights protections and procedural requirements)
- In re Cameron, 153 Ohio App.3d 687 (Ohio App.) (discusses adequacy of registry protections for putative fathers)
- In re Adoption of G.V., 126 Ohio St.3d 249 (Ohio 2010) (addresses best‑interest and permanency considerations in adoption decisions)