2014 Ohio 5390
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- H.R., born Sept. 4, 2009, was placed with maternal grandparents Ravonda and Thomas Taylor on Sept. 19, 2009; the Taylors filed to adopt on June 5, 2012.
- Father Larry Reisinger II has been incarcerated since Jan. 2010 and lived apart from the child; Taylors alleged he failed to provide more than de minimis contact and failed to support the child for the year before the adoption petition.
- Reisinger initially filed a pro se protest and later, through counsel, moved to dismiss asserting venue problems and that his consent was necessary; the trial court conducted hearings and received testimony and exhibits (letters/cards, visitation testimony).
- The probate court found by clear and convincing evidence that Reisinger failed to provide more than de minimis contact in the year before the petition, that any support was token, and that his consent was not required under R.C. 3107.07(A); it also discussed best interests (surplusage).
- Reisinger appealed, arguing the court erred in (1) finding consent unnecessary — claiming timely objection, sufficient contact/support, and lack of a justifiable-cause finding — and (2) improperly addressing the child’s best interest and taking judicial notice of another court’s filings.
- The appellate court affirmed: it held the court did not abuse its discretion in finding insufficient contact and no justifiable cause, and treated the best-interest discussion as harmless surplusage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Reisinger) | Defendant's Argument (Taylors) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether father's written consent to adoption was unnecessary under R.C. 3107.07(A) (failure to provide more than de minimis contact or support for the one-year period) | Reisinger: He did have contact (phone calls/letters via his mother), made support payments, filed objections in time, and had justifiable cause given incarceration and asserted obstruction by Taylors | Taylors: Reisinger had essentially no contact in the relevant year; letters/cards were undated/questionable; payments were token; no justifiable cause shown | Court: Affirmed — clear-and-convincing evidence supported finding of failure to provide more than de minimis contact and no justifiable cause; consent not required under R.C. 3107.07(A) |
| Whether trial court properly made/findings on justifiable cause | Reisinger: Trial court failed to expressly analyze or find justifiable cause and wrongly disregarded incarceration and visitation barriers | Taylors: Evidence showed lack of meaningful contact; incarceration alone does not automatically establish justifiable cause | Court: Trial court’s judgment shows it concluded no justifiable cause; decision not against manifest weight of evidence |
| Whether trial court erred by addressing child’s best interest and taking judicial notice of another court’s pleadings | Reisinger: Best-interest analysis is not part of R.C. 3107.07(A); judge improperly took judicial notice of Union County pleadings | Taylors: Not addressed in detail on appeal; primary defense rested on statutory grounds | Court: Best-interest comments were surplusage and harmless; judicial-notice statements regarding other court’s pleadings were disregarded for manifest-weight review; outcome unaffected |
| Whether successor judge could rely on prior hearing testimony to assess credibility | Reisinger: Successor judge improperly assessed credibility when not present at original hearing | Taylors: Did not press this point on appeal | Court: Did not decide the successor-judge issue; held even if credibility ruling were treated skeptically, the record still supports the finding of inadequate contact |
Key Cases Cited
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (defines clear and convincing evidence standard)
- In re Adoption of M.B., 131 Ohio St.3d 186 (2012) (articulates two-step R.C. 3107.07(A) analysis: failure then justifiable cause review)
- In re Adoption of Masa, 23 Ohio St.3d 163 (discusses standard for reviewing factual findings such as justifiable cause)