Background

• Appellant Clark Butler, father of minor D.R., appeals a Belmont County adoption judgment granting Patricia and Timothy Ray’s petition and the court found his consent unnecessary for failure to provide maintenance for at least one year prior to placement.
• D.R. was born Sept 16, 2003; Nicole L. Ray is the mother; Butler was ordered to pay child support of $50/month starting April 1, 2004.
• Appellees obtained legal custody of D.R. on April 5, 2006; adoption petition filed November 17, 2010; notice sent to Butler at Huttonsville Correctional Center.
• Butler was incarcerated around the time of petition; he made few or no child support payments 2004–2006; first payment was November 19, 2007.
• Trial court found that defendants’ consent was not required under R.C. 3107.07(A) and final decree issued March 18, 2011; Butler appealed alleging incarceration should negate the finding.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• In re Schoeppner, 46 Ohio St.2d 21 (Ohio 1976) (incarceration alone not dispositive; factors may support lack of consent)
• In re Masa, 23 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 1986) (burden of proof shifts; petitioner must show failure to support/communicate)
• In re Adoption of C.L.B., 191 Ohio App.3d 64 (Ohio 2010) (recites burden shifting; facially justifiable cause required)
• In re Adoption of Reams, 52 Ohio App.3d 52 (Ohio 1999) (adoption affects fundamental liberty interests; due process protections)
• In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (Ohio 1997) (consent exceptions and due process in adoption)
• Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (fundamental liberty interest in care/custody; procedural protections)
• Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (fundamental rights in parental termination; clear and convincing standard)
• Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (patent parental rights and standards for interference)