2016 Ohio 4929
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Stephen Colburn, the minor’s step-great-grandfather, filed a Petition for Placement for Purposes of Adoption under R.C. 5103.16, asserting he and his late wife were granted legal custody by the juvenile court in 2010.
- Colburn alleged the biological parents had failed to provide more than de minimis contact or support for at least one year before filing.
- The child’s mother, Angela Vitale, objected and secured counsel; she moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), arguing a step-great-grandfather is not a “relative” under R.C. 5103.16(D) and therefore lacks standing to pursue placement.
- The probate court dismissed the petition, concluding a step-great-grandfather is not a “relative” under R.C. 5103.16(D).
- On appeal the Eleventh District affirmed dismissal but on different grounds: Colburn had filed under R.C. 5103.16 (placement-for-adoption procedure) despite being exempt from that statute’s placement requirements as a legal custodian under R.C. 5103.16(E), so his chosen procedural vehicle was improper.
- The court also discussed (as dicta) that the statutory term “relative” can reasonably include spouses of great-grandparents, citing administrative definitions and placement practice considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a legal custodian must use R.C. 5103.16 placement procedures before seeking adoption | Colburn argued he could proceed under 5103.16 despite being legal custodian | Vitale argued Colburn lacked standing under 5103.16(D) as a non-relative | Court: Colburn erred by filing under 5103.16; as a legal custodian he was exempt from placement requirements under 5103.16(E) and should have filed for adoption under R.C. 3107.05 (affirmed dismissal) |
| Whether a step-great-grandfather is a “relative” under R.C. 5103.16(D) | Colburn argued step-great-grandfather qualifies as a relative (affinity) | Vitale argued step-great-grandfather is a non-relative and lacks standing to bring placement application | Court: Discussed as dicta—concluded the term “relative” can reasonably include spouses of great-grandparents, but the question was moot because of Colburn’s exemption under 5103.16(E) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Consilio, 114 Ohio St.3d 295 (Ohio 2007) (de novo review standard for statutory construction)
- In re J.A.S., 126 Ohio St.3d 145 (Ohio 2010) (R.C. 5103.16 governs independent placement procedure and requires strict compliance)
- Lemley v. Kaiser, 6 Ohio St.3d 258 (Ohio 1983) (R.C. 5103.16 reflects legislative intent to impose probate-court control over private placement)
- In re R.V., 190 Ohio App.3d 313 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010) (discussing definition of “relative” to include affinity or consanguinity)
- BP Communications Alaska, Inc. v. Cent. Collection Agency, 136 Ohio App.3d 807 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000) (explaining de novo appellate review means no trial-court deference)