2014 Ohio 4959
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Child H.N.R. born August 29, 2013; mother N.A.B. surrendered the child for adoption January 18, 2014; adoptive parents filed adoption petition February 11, 2014.
- Appellant C.S.M. had a year-long romantic relationship with the mother, was present at birth, likely biological father (DNA test showing 99.99% probability), and visited the infant intermittently for the first months of life.
- C.S.M. did not register with Ohio Putative Father Registry (PFR) within 30 days after birth and did not initiate paternity proceedings before the adoption petition was filed; he only sought intervention and filed custody/parentage actions after learning of the surrender/adoption.
- Greene County Probate Court found C.S.M.’s consent to the adoption was not required under R.C. 3107.07(B)(1) because he failed to timely register with the PFR and failed to initiate parentage proceedings prior to the adoption petition.
- C.S.M. appealed, arguing (1) the State failed to promote awareness of the PFR (waived for failure to raise below), and (2) the 30-day PFR deadline is unconstitutional as applied to him (due process).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (C.S.M.) | Defendant's Argument (Appellees) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver / failure to raise claim that state failed to promote PFR awareness | State had statutory duty to promote awareness under R.C. 3107.065; lack of notice by State excused late registration | Claim was not raised in trial court; thus waived; counsel had adequate opportunity to raise it | Waived — appellate court refused to consider the argument |
| Jurisdiction / whether probate court could proceed despite later-filed parentage actions | Probate court should have stayed because parenting issues pending in juvenile court | Probate court acquired jurisdiction first because adoption petition filed before any juvenile parentage adjudication; juvenile filing later does not divest probate court | Probate court had jurisdiction and properly proceeded |
| Constitutionality of 30-day PFR deadline as applied (due process) | 30-day deadline is unconstitutional as applied where father had established a developed parent–child relationship and child was placed for adoption months later; should be able to register before surrender/adoption filing | Ohio statutory scheme and Lehr support constitutionality of putative-father registry; scheme protects inchoate interest and is adequate; father could have sought paternity earlier | No constitutional violation as applied; statute is constitutional and bars C.S.M.’s consent right |
| Effect of post-birth conduct (visits/DNA) on PFR requirement | Father’s visits and DNA evidence show a developed relationship that should overcome statutory bar | Visits were sporadic and insufficient to create a ‘‘developed relationship’’ that would negate registry requirement; statute requires timely registration or prior paternity action | Father’s conduct insufficient; failure to register/timely pursue parentage removes his consent right |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1983) (upheld putative-father registry as adequate protection of unmarried father’s inchoate interest when father complies with statute)
- In re Adoption of Asente, 90 Ohio St.3d 91 (Ohio 2000) (once a court of competent jurisdiction is exercising authority over a child, other courts should refrain from exercising jurisdiction)
- In re Adoption of Pushcar, 110 Ohio St.3d 332 (Ohio 2006) (when parenting issue is pending in juvenile court, probate court must generally refrain from proceeding with adoption)
- In re Adoption of G.V., 126 Ohio St.3d 249 (Ohio 2010) (applies Pushcar principles regarding pending juvenile parentage proceedings)
- State ex rel. Otten v. Henderson, 129 Ohio St.3d 453 (Ohio 2011) (jurisdictional priority: first court to properly invoke jurisdiction may exclude others for same whole issue)
- In re Cameron, 153 Ohio App.3d 687 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003) (applies Lehr and upholds Ohio PFR against substantive due-process challenge where father’s visitation was limited)
- In re Adoption of P.A.C., 126 Ohio St.3d 236 (Ohio 2010) (related to interplay of juvenile parentage proceedings and probate adoption jurisdiction)
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Picklo, 96 Ohio St.3d 195 (Ohio 2002) (notice to Attorney General under R.C. 2721.12 required only in declaratory-judgment actions)
- State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 (Ohio 1986) (appellate waiver doctrine: issues not raised below are generally waived)