In re P.L.H.
79 N.E.3d 117
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Child P.L.H. born Nov. 3, 2015; mother and putative father (Father) never married. Father registered on the putative-father registry Sept. 4, 2015.
- Prospective adoptive parents (appellees) filed adoption petition Nov. 6, 2015; mother consented and child was placed with them. Father timely objected.
- Father had no in-person contact with mother during pregnancy and no contact with the child after placement; sporadic texts/calls occurred, with a multi-month gap from June–Sept. 2015.
- Probate court held a hearing and found by clear and convincing evidence that Father willfully abandoned the mother during her pregnancy up to placement, so his consent was not required under R.C. 3107.07(B)(2)(c).
- Father appealed, arguing the court erred; the appellate majority affirmed, concluding the finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judge Hendrickson dissented, arguing the evidence did not meet the clear-and-convincing standard and that (in context) sporadic contact and expressions of interest defeated a willful-abandonment finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a putative father’s consent is unnecessary because he willfully abandoned the mother during pregnancy under R.C. 3107.07(B)(2)(c) | Appellees: Father willfully abandoned mother—no in-person contact, no support, long lapse in communication; abandonment proven by clear and convincing evidence | Father: Did not abandon mother; maintained sporadic contact, expressed support and desire for custody, registered as putative father, attempted limited financial help and communications | Affirmed: Probate court’s finding of willful abandonment was supported by the record and not against the manifest weight of the evidence; consent not required |
| Whether the probate court lacked jurisdiction because juvenile court had pending parenting issues | Father suggested jurisdictional conflict | Probate record: juvenile court dismissed/declined and Father did not appeal; Father had filed memorandum deferring jurisdiction to probate | Court: No jurisdictional problem; probate had exclusive jurisdiction and properly proceeded |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (clear-and-convincing standard required when terminating parental rights)
- Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (U.S. 1990) (parental rights are fundamental)
- In re Adoption of G.V., 126 Ohio St.3d 249 (Ohio 2010) (natural-parent rights described as precious and fundamental)
- In re Adoption of P.A.C., 126 Ohio St.3d 236 (Ohio 2010) (same principle protecting parental consent)
- In re Adoption of H.N.R., 145 Ohio St.3d 144 (Ohio 2015) (definition and registration mechanics for putative father)
- In re Adoption of Zschach, 75 Ohio St.3d 648 (Ohio 1996) (statutory scheme balances competing policies protecting putative fathers)