2021 Ohio 420
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Stepfather L.C., Jr. filed to adopt his stepdaughter D.L.C. on Feb. 28, 2020; biological father D.A. was never married to the mother and paternity had been established.
- D.A. was incarcerated at the child’s birth, released in Apr. 2012, then incarcerated again Oct. 2014–Apr. 2020.
- The petition alleged D.A. failed, without justifiable cause, to provide more than de minimis contact or maintenance/support for the one year immediately preceding the petition.
- No child-support order existed; D.A. admitted he provided no financial support during the relevant one-year period; token gifts (if any) ended before that year.
- Trial court found D.A. had justifiable cause for lack of contact but, by clear and convincing evidence, did not have justifiable cause for failing to provide maintenance/support and therefore his consent was not required; D.A. appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed the probate court, rejecting D.A.’s manifest-weight and equal-protection challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether father failed, without justifiable cause, to provide maintenance/support under R.C. 3107.07(A) for the one-year period before the petition | Petitioner (L.C.): D.A. provided no support during the year; even minimal payments would have sufficed | D.A.: Incarceration prevented him from earning income, so his failure to pay was justified | Court: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence D.A. had no justifiable cause for failing to provide maintenance/support |
| Whether treating inability to pay (due to incarceration/poverty) as a basis to dispense with consent violates Equal Protection | L.C.: Statute focuses on whether any support was provided, not wealth; state has compelling interest in ensuring minimal support | D.A.: Denying consent because he was poor/unable to pay (while incarcerated) makes wealth the deciding factor and violates fundamental parental-rights equal protection | Court: Rejected — incarceration alone is not automatically justifiable cause; statute does not unconstitutionally discriminate because even meager support can satisfy requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of M.B., 963 N.E.2d 142 (Ohio 2012) (distinguishes standard of review: contribution abuse-of-discretion; justifiable-cause reviewed for manifest weight)
- In re Adoption of B.I., 131 N.E.3d 28 (Ohio 2019) (parent’s independent duty to support child absent a child-support order)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 679 N.E.2d 1099 (Ohio 1997) (defines civil plain-error standard)
- Cross v. Ledford, 120 N.E.2d 118 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear-and-convincing evidence)
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 376 N.E.2d 578 (Ohio 1978) (manifest-weight review: judgment supported by some competent, credible evidence will not be reversed)