In re J.L.
2019 Ohio 366
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Father and mother divorced in 2013; mother was residential parent; father lived in North Carolina and had infrequent visits before 2016.
- In August 2016 mother obtained an ex parte domestic-violence protection order after reports father threatened mother, stepfather, and children; father later signed a consent protective-order agreement on September 27, 2016, forbidding contact with mother and stepfather (the children were not listed as protected persons).
- Stepfather filed petitions on August 18, 2017 seeking to adopt both minor children without father’s consent under R.C. 3107.07(A), alleging father had provided no more-than-de-minimis contact during the preceding year.
- A magistrate found father had no contact during the statutory one-year look-back period and that his failure to contact was not justified; the probate court adopted the magistrate’s findings and held father’s consent was not required.
- Father appealed, arguing (1) the ex parte protection order barred contact during the ex parte period and (2) mother significantly interfered with contact during the consent-agreement period; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Stepfather/Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether father’s consent was unnecessary under R.C. 3107.07(A) because he failed to provide more-than-de-minimis contact in the year before the adoption petitions | Father: He was prohibited from contacting the children by the ex parte and consent protection orders, so his noncontact was justified | Stepfather: Father had no contact during the statutory period and took no steps to reestablish contact despite opportunities; the orders did not bar contact for the bulk of the period | Held: Father had no contact during the look-back period and consent was not required |
| Whether father had justifiable cause for failing to contact the children | Father: Ex parte order and his reasonable belief the consent agreement barred contact provided justifiable cause | Mother/Stepfather: The consent agreement did not list the children; father had counsel and means to contact or to seek parenting time; his mistaken belief and inaction were not justifiable | Held: No justifiable cause shown by clear-and-convincing evidence; probate court did not err |
| Whether mother significantly interfered with contact during the consent-agreement period | Father: Mother discouraged or impeded contact throughout the statutory period | Mother/Stepfather: Mother did not hide children, they remained at home, and limited interference (e.g., one unannounced grandparent visit) did not amount to significant interference | Held: Mother’s conduct did not significantly interfere over the one-year look-back period |
| Whether the probate court’s justifiable-cause finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Father: The court lost its way in discounting the protective orders and interference evidence | Appellees: Court properly weighed evidence and credibility; discretionary findings will not be disturbed absent manifest miscarriage | Held: Appellate court affirmed — no manifest-weight error; probate court did not lose its way |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of G.V., 126 Ohio St.3d 249 (Ohio 2010) (requirement to strictly construe parental-consent statute)
- In re Adoption of M.B., 131 Ohio St.3d 186 (Ohio 2012) (burden to prove justifiable cause by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Adoption of McDermitt, 63 Ohio St.2d 301 (Ohio 1980) (disjunctive statutory grounds — failure to contact or to support)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (manifest-weight standard for reviewing factual findings)
- In re Adoption of Bovett, 33 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1987) (court may examine the one-year period as a whole when determining justifiable cause)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (Ohio 1985) (significant interference by custodial parent required to establish justifiable cause)
- In re Adoption of M.G.B.-E., 154 Ohio St.3d 17 (Ohio 2018) (consider both noncustodial parent’s efforts and custodial parent’s impediments)
- In re Adoption of Greer, 70 Ohio St.3d 293 (Ohio 1994) (order determining parental-consent requirement is final and appealable)
- In re Adoption of Kuhlmann, 99 Ohio App.3d 44 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994) (ignorance of legal effect of signed order does not excuse noncontact)