2017 Ohio 5612
Oh. Ct. App. 1st Dist. Hamilto...2017Background
- Child G.A.R. born May 30, 2015; mother surrendered him to Adoption Professionals, which placed him with prospective adoptive parents A.R. and M.C.
- No father listed on birth certificate; C.B. registered with Ohio putative-father registry and filed a paternity and custody action in Hamilton County Juvenile Court on July 20, 2015.
- A.R. and M.C. filed a probate-court adoption petition on September 16, 2015, alleging C.B. had willfully abandoned the mother and that his consent was unnecessary under R.C. 3107.07(B).
- Probate court set a finalization hearing and served notice; C.B. did not file timely objections but later moved to dismiss, arguing the probate court should have stayed the adoption because the juvenile paternity/custody action was pending.
- Juvenile court later adjudicated C.B. the biological and legal father; probate court magistrate dismissed the adoption petition and the probate court affirmed, finding the adoption petition prematurely filed and that probate should have stayed proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (A.R./M.C.) | Defendant's Argument (C.B.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probate court could proceed (set hearing/serve notice) on adoption while juvenile paternity/custody action was pending | Probate court may exercise exclusive adoption jurisdiction and may set hearings and rely on R.C. 3107.07(K) when putative father fails to timely object | Probate court should have immediately stayed adoption because juvenile paternity/custody action filed first | Court held probate should have stayed; dismissal affirmed because juvenile action predated adoption petition |
| Effect of juvenile-court adjudication of paternity on the statutory consent standard | Petitioners argued C.B. was a putative father and consent could be overcome under R.C. 3107.07(B); timely-objection rule bars C.B.’s consent claim | Once paternity is judicially established, petitioners must proceed under R.C. 3107.07(A) (one-year prefiling requirement) | Court held juvenile adjudication converted C.B. to a legal father; petitioners’ claim under Division B was no longer proper and the one-year prefiling period had not run, so petition was premature |
| Whether failure to file timely objections under R.C. 3107.07(K) cures jurisdictional/timing defects | A.R./M.C. argued C.B.’s late objections waived his consent right and adoption could proceed | C.B. argued waiver irrelevant because pending juvenile proceedings and later paternity adjudication changed the consent framework | Court held late objections immaterial because the petition was prematurely filed and should have been stayed; dismissal proper |
| Whether a pending private-custody juvenile action prohibits a later-filed probate adoption | Petitioners relied on Allen Cty. to argue probate may proceed concurrently | C.B. argued juvenile private custody action filed first requires other courts to refrain from exercising jurisdiction | Court held Allen Cty. inapplicable (distinguished by dependency/adjudicated cases); a prior-filed juvenile private custody action bars proceeding in probate until resolved |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of Pushcar, 853 N.E.2d 647 (Ohio 2006) (when parenting issue is pending in juvenile court, probate must refrain from proceeding with the adoption)
- In re Adoption of G.V., 933 N.E.2d 245 (Ohio 2010) (applying Pushcar; adoption petition filed before paternity adjudication is premature where one-year prefiling period has not begun)
- In re Adoption of Sunderhaus, 585 N.E.2d 418 (Ohio 1992) (one-year prefiling period for consent-override under R.C. 3107.07(A) commences when parentage is judicially established)
- In re Adoption of Asente, 734 N.E.2d 1224 (Ohio 2000) (once a court of competent jurisdiction begins deciding a child’s long-term fate, other courts must refrain from exercising jurisdiction over the matter)
- State ex rel. Portage Cty. Welfare Dept. v. Summers, 311 N.E.2d 6 (Ohio 1974) (probate court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over adoptions)
- State ex rel. Allen Cty. Children’s Servs. Bd. v. Mercer Cty. Common Pleas Court, Probate Div., 81 N.E.3d 380 (Ohio 2016) (distinguished here; involved adjudicated abuse/neglect juvenile cases and different statutory framework)