In re J.P.E., 2017 Ohio 1108

Amber Saltzmann (mother) and Russell Brewer (father) are biological parents of J.P.E. (b.2008) and A.A.E. (b.2006); children entered agency custody in 2012 due to parents’ instability and drug abuse.
Russell received temporary custody in Dec. 2013; children came into Brent and Amanda Erb’s care (church members) in 2014 and the Erbs obtained legal custody in Feb. 2015. Mother did not appear at that hearing.
Appellants (the Erbs) filed adoption petitions on May 9, 2016, alleging under R.C. 3107.07(A) that the parents had failed, without justifiable cause, for at least one year to (a) provide more than de minimis contact and (b) provide maintenance/support.
Mother located the children Dec. 2015, attempted repeated contacts (Facebook messages/comments, pastor calls, church visit May 8, 2016); appellants blocked some Facebook contacts and declined extended contact at the church. Disputed evidence whether mother/family offered money or gifts, and whether Erbs refused them.
Probate court found mother had lacked more-than-de minimis contact and support but that those failures were justified due to significant interference/discouragement by the Erbs and inability to locate children; thus held mother’s consent was required and denied adoption. Appellants appealed; majority affirmed. Judge Grendell dissented.

Issue	Appellants' Argument	Saltzmann's Argument	Held
Whether mother’s consent was unnecessary under R.C. 3107.07(A) because she failed for one year to provide more-than-de-minimis contact	Erbs: Mother made minimal efforts over several years and did not use legal avenues; any blocking on Facebook or nonresponse is not “significant interference.”	Mother: She did not know children’s whereabouts, made multiple attempts via Facebook, pastor, and a church visit; Erbs blocked/ignored contacts and curtailed the church visit.	Court: Mother’s failures were justified — significant interference/ discouragement by appellants; consent required.
Whether mother’s failure to provide maintenance/support for one year was unjustified	Erbs: Mother was employed and could have provided support but did not; no evidence she attempted to pay or contact court/agency.	Mother: She did not know where to send support, was not asked for support, and when she and family offered money/gifts at church the Erbs refused.	Court: Mother’s failure to provide support was justified (no address, attempts to give money/gifts refused); finding not against manifest weight.

In re Bovett, 33 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1987) (burden on petitioner to prove failure to support/contact and lack of justifiable cause under adoption statute)
In re Masa, 23 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 1986) (standards for termination/adoption burden-shifting principles)
In re M.B., 131 Ohio St.3d 186 (Ohio 2012) (two-step analysis under R.C. 3107.07: factual failure then justifiable cause review)
In re Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (Ohio 1985) (significant interference or discouragement required to justify noncustodial parent's failure to communicate)
Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (standard for reversing a judgment as against the manifest weight of the evidence)