In re J.F.R-W
2017 Ohio 1265
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Child J.F.R‑W was born in 2008 to Paul B. and Jessica W.; divorce awarded residential custody to Jessica and visitation to Paul.
- Contact declined over years; Paul's last contact before the adoption petition was a birthday text on Jan 10, 2015.
- Jessica married Heath W.; Heath petitioned to adopt the child on May 24, 2016. Paul refused to consent.
- Probate court found Paul had not provided more than de minimis contact in the year before the petition and that his failure was without justifiable cause, permitting the adoption to proceed without his consent.
- Paul appealed, arguing Jessica substantially interfered with visitation and thus had justifiable cause for his lack of contact.
- Court of Appeals reviewed credibility findings for manifest-weight error and affirmed the probate court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Paul) | Defendant's Argument (Heath/Jessica) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parent’s consent can be excused where parent failed to have more than de minimis contact in prior year | Jessica substantially interfered with Paul’s attempts to contact/visit (moving, ignoring calls/texts, blocking, serving by publication) so his noncontact was justified | Paul had reasonable alternative means to locate/contact the child, made limited efforts, and offered no compelling justification for failure to leave voicemails or pursue known addresses/means | Court held petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Paul failed without justifiable cause to provide more than de minimis contact; adoption may proceed without his consent |
| Standard of proof and burden allocation | Paul argued interference should suffice to show justifiable cause | Probate court noted petitioner bears burden of proving lack of justification by clear and convincing evidence; parent need only present some facially justifiable cause but petitioner must rebut it | Court applied statutory allocation: petitioner’s clear-and-convincing burden satisfied; Paul’s proffered interference did not establish justifiable cause |
| Review standard for credibility and factual findings | Paul urged record supports interference findings in his favor | Appellee relied on trial court credibility determinations and evidence of Paul’s inaction | Court deferred to probate court credibility findings and found decision not against manifest weight of the evidence |
| Effect of prior procedural steps (name-change by publication, support hearings) on justification | Paul argued procedural conduct (publication service, name-change, alleged evasions) evidences interference | Court considered those events but found Paul had other avenues to pursue contact and did not adequately use them | Court held these events did not establish justifiable cause sufficient to prevent the adoption |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (Ohio 1985) (recognizes custodial-parent interference as a form of justifiable cause)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parental rights are fundamental; burden of proof standards for terminating parental rights)
- In re Adoption of Masa, 23 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 1986) (parental-consent exceptions must be strictly construed)
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (Ohio 1997) (severing parent-child relationship likened to ‘death penalty’)
- In re Estate of Haynes, 25 Ohio St.3d 101 (Ohio 1986) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Adoption of Bovett, 33 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1987) (petitioner retains burden to prove lack of justification)
- Myers v. Garson, 66 Ohio St.3d 610 (Ohio 1993) (trial-court credibility findings entitled to deference)
- Matter of Adoption of Hupp, 9 Ohio App.3d 128 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982) (describes substantial interference standard as depriving meaningful relationship)