2019 Ohio 3884
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Children’s mother died in 2013; maternal grandmother (T.B.) cared for them initially.
- In 2017 the juvenile court placed the children in the legal custody of their maternal grandfather (Appellee).
- Grandfather filed petitions to adopt in March 2018; grandmother later filed competing adoption petitions.
- Grandfather moved to dismiss grandmother’s petitions, arguing jurisdictional priority, lack of standing, and other defects; the trial court ultimately dismissed the grandmother’s petitions because the children had not been placed in her home and she had not sought placement or a change in legal custody.
- Grandmother appealed, arguing R.C. 3107.03 authorized her to file and R.C. 5103.16 exempts grandparents from pre-adoptive placement approval.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the statutory exemption for grandparents means pre-placement approval under R.C. 5103.16 was not required and the trial court erred in finding she lacked standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prospective adoptive grandparent must have the child placed in their home (or obtain pre-placement court approval) before filing an adoption petition | T.B.: Grandparents are exempt from R.C. 5103.16 pre-placement approval; R.C. 3107.03 gives her standing to file a petition without prior placement | Grandfather: Placement in petitioner’s home (or court-ordered placement) is a prerequisite to finalize adoption and affects petitioner’s standing; she failed to obtain placement or juvenile-court custody | Court: Grandparents are exempt under R.C. 5103.16(E); pre-placement approval was not required and trial court erred in holding she lacked standing |
| Whether dismissal for lack of standing was proper where petitioner had statutory status as an unmarried adult seeking adoption | T.B.: As an unmarried adult and grandmother she has statutory authority to petition under R.C. 3107.03 | Grandfather: Practical prerequisites (placement/permission of legal custodian) must be satisfied before petition proceeds | Court: R.C. 3107.03 conferred standing; dismissal based on absence of pre-placement approval was erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of J.A.S., 931 N.E.2d 554 (Ohio 2010) (explains R.C. 5103.16 pre-placement approval requirement and its purpose)
- In re Adoption of Zschach, 665 N.E.2d 1070 (Ohio 1996) (discusses legislative intent to curb independent/adverse private placements)
- Lemley v. Kaiser, 452 N.E.2d 1304 (Ohio 1983) (describes probate-court approval role for private placements)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Horn, 31 N.E.3d 637 (Ohio 2015) (standing requires a real interest in the subject matter)
- Jacobson v. Kaforey, 75 N.E.3d 203 (Ohio 2016) (statutory interpretation rules; assess ambiguity first)
- Wilson v. Lawrence, 81 N.E.3d 1242 (Ohio 2017) (plain-meaning rule; apply statute as written when unambiguous)