In re Petition for Adoption of M.R.M.
2017 Ohio 7710
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Child (born to Mother and Birth Dad) lived primarily with Mother; Stepdad began dating Mother when child was ~3, moved in when child ~5, and married Mother when child ~6.
- Stepdad acted as father figure; child calls him “daddy.” Birth Dad had court-ordered supervised visitation but contact became sporadic and ceased October 2015.
- Stepdad filed to adopt under R.C. 3107.05 in Sept. 2016, asserting Birth Dad’s consent unnecessary because he failed to provide support for a year without justifiable cause.
- Probate court excused Birth Dad’s consent (finding no justifiable cause), then held a contested best-interest hearing including an in-camera interview of the child.
- Probate court found Stepdad loving and a stable parent but denied the adoption, concluding severing Birth Dad’s parental rights was not in the child’s best interest and that maintaining all three parental figures was least detrimental.
- Stepdad appealed, arguing the court failed to consider R.C. 3107.161(B) factors, that the denial was against the manifest weight/abuse of discretion, and that Birth Dad failed to present material evidence per R.C. 3107.161(C).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probate court failed to consider R.C. 3107.161(B) factors | Court’s judgment does not cite or list R.C. 3107.161(B) factors; remand required for explicit consideration | Record and hearing (questions, testimony, in-camera interview) show the court considered the factors | No error — record demonstrates court considered R.C. 3107.161(B) factors despite not enumerating them in entry |
| Whether denial of adoption was against manifest weight/abuse of discretion | Factors weigh for adoption: Stepdad is primary father figure, assessor recommended adoption, child wishes adoption, long separation from Birth Dad | Birth Dad presented credible testimony that status quo (Mother+Stepdad household with Birth Dad visitation) is least detrimental and he places child’s interests first | No abuse of discretion — trial court reasonably found denying adoption better preserved child’s relationship with Birth Dad and stability with three parental figures |
| Whether Birth Dad failed to present material evidence / show current placement is not least detrimental alternative under R.C. 3107.161(C) | Birth Dad presented no material evidence and did not establish the current placement is not the least detrimental alternative | Birth Dad testified about desired status quo (living with Mother and Stepdad with visitation), reasons for sporadic contact, and willingness to prioritize child’s interests—sufficient material evidence | Held that Birth Dad met his burden; his testimony constituted material evidence and established the least detrimental alternative (status quo) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of Masa, 23 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 1986) (adoption terminates fundamental parental rights)
- In re Adoption of Charles B., 50 Ohio St.3d 88 (Ohio 1990) (trial courts have broad discretion in adoption determinations)
- In re Adoption of Ridenour, 61 Ohio St.3d 319 (Ohio 1991) (abuse of discretion is standard for reviewing adoption rulings)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion defined as unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable)
- Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (appellate courts defer to trial court credibility determinations)