2018 Ohio 1021
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Child E.E.H., born 2010; parents are Mother and Father (paternity established; Father pays child support but no court-ordered visitation was set).
- Father had intermittent early contact (visits through 2012) but no contact during the one-year look-back period stipulated by parties (May 23, 2016–May 23, 2017).
- Father filed a motion to establish parenting time in Domestic Relations Court on April 12, 2017 (within the one-year period); that motion was pending when Petitioner (Mother’s husband, former roommate/friend of Father) filed to adopt the child on May 23, 2017.
- Petitioner sought adoption; Father objected, arguing his consent was required because any failure to communicate during the year had justifiable cause.
- Probate court held a hearing, found Father’s lack of contact had justifiable cause (including Mother’s conduct and Father’s pending motion for parenting time), and denied the adoption petition; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a parent’s filing of a motion for parenting time during the statutory one-year period constitutes justifiable cause for de minimis contact, preventing waiver of parental consent under R.C. 3107.07(A) | Filing the motion does not equal meaningful contact; a procedural filing alone cannot satisfy justifiable cause and should not bar adoption | Filing the motion showed a bona fide attempt to legally reestablish contact and, coupled with Mother’s interference, constitutes justifiable cause for lack of direct contact | Court held the motion filing, in context with Mother’s interference and history, provided justifiable cause; adoption denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of Bovett, 33 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1987) (petitioner bears burden by clear and convincing evidence to prove failure to support or communicate and lack of justifiable cause)
- In re Adoption of Masa, 23 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 1986) (same burden principles)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (Ohio 1985) (custodial-parent interference can constitute justifiable cause)
- In re Adoption of Zschach, 75 Ohio St.3d 648 (Ohio 1996) (parental relationship as a constitutionally protected liberty interest)
- In re Adoption of Schoeppner, 46 Ohio St.2d 21 (Ohio 1976) (exceptions to parental-consent requirement must be strictly construed)
- In re Adoption of Lauck, 82 Ohio App.3d 348 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992) (courts may consider events outside the one-year period when assessing justifiable cause)