In re R.L.H.
2013 Ohio 3462
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Mother (D.Q.) and Father (C.H.) separated; Father received legal custody of daughter R.L.H.; Mother had court-ordered weekly supervised visitation at Erma’s House.
- Mother was physically abused by a partner (K.Q.) in April 2011, separated from him, and continued supervised visits through July 2011.
- Mother asked Erma’s House in August 2011 to suspend weekly visits for 30 days, was told to call by September 7 to resume, but did not call; Erma’s House closed her case.
- From October 1, 2011 to October 1, 2012 (the relevant one-year period before the adoption petition), Mother did not see, speak with, or correspond with R.L.H.; adoption petition filed October 1, 2012 by L.H., Father’s new wife.
- Trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence under R.C. 3107.07(A), that Mother failed without justifiable cause to have more than de minimis contact during the year before the petition; Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (L.H./Adoption Petitioner) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother failed to have more than de minimis contact during the one-year period | Mother contends she (and relatives) repeatedly attempted contact and therefore did not fail to maintain contact | L.H. argues Mother voluntarily suspended visits and made little or no effort to reinstate contact | Court held Mother did fail to have more than de minimis contact (finding credible evidence she made no real efforts) |
| Whether Mother’s lack of contact was for justifiable cause (domestic abuse stress, Father’s interference) | Mother claims PTSD/stress from domestic violence and Father’s relocation/interference justified non-contact | L.H. contends those reasons are “illusory”: Mother continued visits after assault, relied on intermediaries, and did not pursue simple alternatives or court remedies | Court held Mother’s proffered justifications were not persuasive; they were illusory and did not establish justifiable cause |
| Burden allocation: did trial court impermissibly shift burden to Mother to prove justifiable cause by clear and convincing evidence? | Mother argues the court required her to prove justifiable cause by clear and convincing evidence | L.H. contends the petitioner bears ultimate burden to prove lack of justifiable cause by clear and convincing evidence; parent must make a facial showing first | Court held burden was correctly allocated: petitioner bears the ultimate burden; parent must produce some facial justification, after which petitioner may rebut by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether trial court erred in using or applying the term/analysis “illusory” to reject Mother’s facial justification | Mother argues the court impermissibly applied an “illusory test” and gave petitioner a "second bite" after Mother made a facial showing | L.H. and court point to precedent allowing petitioner to rebut facial justifications and prove they were not the real cause | Court held use of “illusory” description was permissible; petitioner may disprove a facially offered justification and the court’s finding was not against manifest weight of evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (Ohio 1985) (adopting parent bears burden by clear and convincing evidence to show failure of contact or support and lack of justifiable cause)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence standard)
- In re Adoption of M.B., 131 Ohio St.3d 186 (Ohio 2012) (two-step probate analysis: factual finding then justifiable-cause review; appellate standard deference to probate court findings)
- In re Adoption of Bovett, 33 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1987) (burden-shifting discussion regarding parent’s production of justification)
- In re Adoption of Masa, 23 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 1986) (addressing burden and standards in adoption consent cases)