2016 Ohio 388
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Petitioner C.L.S., a 38-year-old mother, contacted licensed private agency Adoption by Gentle Care in March 2014 and, after meeting with an agency social worker and selecting prospective adoptive parents, signed a permanent surrender agreement four days after giving birth (with the statutory 72-hour waiting period observed).
- The surrender was documented by a signed agreement, an affidavit of relinquishment, and an audio-recorded colloquy in which C.L.S. acknowledged her rights and options and declined other options when asked.
- Shortly after signing, C.L.S. sought to revoke the surrender, claiming duress, undue influence, fraud, and incapacity due to post-surgical pain medication and hormonal effects; the adoptive parents dismissed their adoption petition and the child was returned to the agency.
- C.L.S. filed for a writ of habeas corpus seeking return of the child and alleged the surrender was involuntary; after many days of trial testimony the juvenile court granted respondent’s Civ.R. 41(B)(2) motion for involuntary dismissal, finding C.L.S. failed to prove lack of valid consent by clear and convincing evidence.
- This court previously remanded for fuller findings; the trial court issued a detailed 35-page entry explaining its credibility findings and grounds for dismissal, and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent surrender was invalid for duress/undue influence/incapacity | C.L.S. contends she lacked capacity and acted under duress from her significant other and effects of surgery/medication/hormones so consent was not voluntary | Gentle Care points to signed surrender, affidavit, recorded colloquy, pre-birth counseling and time to decide; contends consent was voluntary | Court held C.L.S. failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that consent was vitiated; dismissal affirmed |
| Admissibility of testimony about communications with J.G. (significant other) | Exclude ruling prevented proof that J.G. coerced her into adoption | Gentle Care argued hearsay and that J.G. was available to testify; objection proper | Court found trial court did not abuse discretion in sustaining objection; evidentiary ruling upheld |
| Whether trial court improperly entered a directed verdict / misapplied standard for involuntary dismissal | C.L.S. argued trial court granted a directed verdict without weighing all elements and credibility appropriately | Gentle Care contended the court properly applied Civ.R. 41(B)(2) and, on remand, supplied findings showing evidence was insufficient | Court explained Civ.R. 50(A) (directed verdict) is more stringent than Civ.R. 41(B)(2); affirmed that the trial court, as factfinder, properly weighed evidence and dismissal was appropriate |
| Whether agency failed to discuss alternatives to surrender as required by administrative rule | C.L.S. argued Gentle Care did not adequately discuss options (foster care, temporary placement, counseling) as required by Ohio Adm.Code | Gentle Care produced documentation, testimony and the recorded colloquy showing options were discussed and declined | Court held record contains competent, credible evidence that alternatives were explained and the requirement was satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (1978) (trial-court findings supported by some competent, credible evidence will not be reversed as against the manifest weight)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Morrow v. Family & Community Servs. of Catholic Charities, 28 Ohio St.3d 247 (1986) (whether a party "really had a choice" when consent is challenged)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (standard for abuse of discretion)
- Blodgett v. Blodgett, 49 Ohio St.3d 243 (1990) (to avoid a contract for duress, coercion must be by the other party to the contract)
- State ex rel. Smith v. Smith, 75 Ohio St.3d 418 (1996) (adoption decree violates due process if consent is invalid)
- Jarupan v. Hanna, 173 Ohio App.3d 284 (2007) (10th Dist.) (discussion of Civ.R. 41(B)(2) and the trial court's role in weighing evidence)