2020 Ohio 4266
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Stepfather filed to adopt two stepchildren on February 22, 2019, arguing the biological father's consent was unnecessary because the father had not had more than de minimis contact in the prior year.
- Father last saw the children in June 2016, spent significant time incarcerated and in an inpatient substance-abuse program, and was released January 22, 2019.
- Father attempted limited contact (a mid-2018 phone call he says went unanswered) and family members sent unreturned Facebook messages; father testified he was blocked on Facebook and did not know the children's address.
- After release, father filed for visitation on January 25, 2019; mother and stepfather married February 5, 2019, and stepfather filed the adoption petition February 22, 2019, which stayed the visitation motion.
- Probate court found father did not have more than de minimis contact but that there was justifiable cause for that failure (custodial parent’s conduct and father’s circumstances); the appellate majority affirmed, with a dissent arguing father’s prolonged absence showed no justifiable cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parental consent is excused when a parent failed to have more than de minimis contact in the year before the adoption petition | Stepfather: father had no contact since June 2016, so consent not required under R.C. 3107.07(A) | Father: lack of contact was with justifiable cause due to mother's interference, relocations, and his incarceration; he sought visitation promptly after release | Court: consent required — although father lacked contact, there was justifiable cause for that failure; adoption petitioner did not meet burden |
| Whether the custodial parent's actions (moving, alleged blocking, ambiguous comment about money) constituted significant interference or discouragement of communication | Stepfather: mother's actions did not amount to significant interference; father largely failed to try | Father: mother moved without notifying him, gave impression visits required payment, blocked contacts, and family efforts to reach her failed | Court: these actions, plus unreturned messages and inability to find address, supported justifiable cause for father's failure to communicate |
| Burden of proof and standard of appellate review | Stepfather: petitioner must prove lack of contact without justifiable cause by clear and convincing evidence | Father: once petitioner shows lack of contact, father need only show facially justifiable cause; trial court credibility findings entitled to deference | Court: applied clear-and-convincing standard, concluded petitioner failed to prove absence of justifiable cause; appellate review deferred to trial court credibility findings |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of M.B., 131 Ohio St.3d 186 (Ohio 2012) (petitioner must prove failure to communicate and lack of justifiable cause by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (Ohio 1985) (justifiable cause may include significant interference or discouragement of communication by the custodial parent)
- In re Adoption of Bovett, 33 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1987) (burden shifts to parent to show facially justifiable cause once failure to communicate is shown)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parental rights are a fundamental liberty interest requiring appropriate procedural protections)
- In re Adoption of Schoeppner, 46 Ohio St.2d 21 (Ohio 1976) (exceptions to parental-consent requirement must be strictly construed to protect parental rights)