2012 Ohio 5254
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Step-father petitioned to adopt the child; father’s consent claimed unnecessary due to lack of de minimis contact for at least one year prior to filing.
- Original petition (May 31, 2011) alleged lack of contact; father had paid some support in mid-2010 but no sustained maintenance claim.
- Step-father sought to supplement (Aug. 25, 2011) to add lack of support as an alternative ground that ripened during the pendency of the petition.
- Father objected, arguing supplementation added a new action and circumvented RC 3107.07(A).
- Court allowed supplementation; on March 27, 2012, it granted final adoption finding consent unnecessary and in child’s best interests.
- Fathers challenge includes arguments about lack of findings of fact and conclusions of law, which the court found meritless absent a timely Civ.R. 52 request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Civ.R. 15(E) supplementation was proper to add lack of support as a ground to consent absence | Father argues supplementation created a new action and violated RC 3107.07(A) | Step-father contends supplementation adds an alternative ground under the same action | Proper under Civ.R. 15(E); ongoing omissions ripened into a ground during pendency |
| Whether the trial court erred by not issuing findings of fact and conclusions of law | Father asserts Civ.R. 52 mandatory findings given disputed facts | No timely Civ.R. 52 request; no mandatory findings need be issued | No error; Civ.R. 52 duty did not arise without a timely request |
Key Cases Cited
- Calex Corp. v. United Steelworkers of America, 137 Ohio App.3d 74 (Ohio App.3d 2000) (supplemental pleading may raise ongoing actions and not necessarily a new claim)
- State ex rel. Dickman v. Defenbacher, 151 Ohio St. 391 (Ohio 1949) (supplemental pleading cannot change the action to a new cause of action)
- In re Gibson, 23 Ohio St.3d 170 (1986) (mandatory Civ.R. 52 findings upon timely request)
- Columbus ex rel. Willits v. Cremean, 27 Ohio App.2d 137 (Ohio App.2d 1971) (supplemental pleading continues original action)
- City of Cincinnati v. Cameron, 33 Ohio St. 336 (1878) (purpose and character of pleadings determined by averments, not label)
- In re Adoption of Zachary H., WM96-013 (1997) (Civ.R. 52 duty depends on timely request)