In re the Adoption of A.M.G.
2015 Ohio 4811
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Daniel Garcia (stepfather) filed to adopt A.M.G. on Sept. 30, 2014; mother Rachel Garcia consented. Antonio Tillison (natural father) objected. Final hearing Jan. 22, 2015.
- Probate court found Tillison had no more-than-de minimis contact with the child in the year before the petition and had not provided maintenance or support for the child.
- Tillison admitted he did not communicate with or support the child from about 2010 until Christmas 2014.
- Tillison argued his failure to contact was justified because Rachel (and Daniel) prevented contact; he presented spotty Facebook/text printouts and testimony.
- The court discredited Tillison’s evidence, found Rachel did not prevent contact, and ruled Tillison’s consent was not required under R.C. 3107.07(A).
- Tillison appealed only the court’s no-contact finding; he did not challenge the court’s alternative finding that he failed to provide maintenance/support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tillison) | Defendant's Argument (Daniel/Rachel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tillison’s consent was unnecessary because he failed, without justifiable cause, to have > de minimis contact in the year before the petition | Rachel (and Daniel) prevented contact; thus failure to contact was justified | Tillison made little-to-no effort to arrange visits; Rachel did not bar contact and showed some willingness | Court affirmed: no justifiable cause for lack of contact; consent not required |
| Whether the absence of maintenance/support justified dispensing with Tillison’s consent | N/A (Tillison did not contest) | Daniel alleged Tillison provided no financial or other support since ~2009/2010 | Court found failure to provide support and relied on this independent statutory ground; uncontested on appeal |
| Burden of proof for dispensing with parental consent under R.C. 3107.07(A) | Tillison argued petitioner must prove lack of justification | Daniel bore burden to prove lack of contact and lack of justification by clear and convincing evidence; burden shifted to Tillison to show justification once lack of contact shown | Court applied the statutory standard and found petitioner met burden; trial court credibility findings sustained |
| Standard for overturning trial court’s justifiable-cause finding | Tillison argued trial court erred as a matter of law and abused discretion | Respondents argued trial court credibility and weight-of-evidence findings should stand | Court declined to disturb trial court; held findings not against manifest weight of evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of Greer, 70 Ohio St.3d 293, 638 N.E.2d 999 (1994) (probate court order denying parental consent is a final appealable order)
- In re Adoption of Schoeppner, 46 Ohio St.2d 21, 345 N.E.2d 608 (1976) (consent provision construed strictly to protect parental rights)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361, 481 N.E.2d 613 (1985) (petitioning party bears burden to prove lack of contact and lack of justification)
- In re Adoption of Bovett, 33 Ohio St.3d 102, 515 N.E.2d 919 (1987) (once lack of contact shown, burden shifts to natural parent to offer justification; ultimate burden remains with petitioner)
- In re Adoption of Lauck, 82 Ohio App.3d 348, 612 N.E.2d 459 (9th Dist. 1992) (trial court weighs evidence on lack of contact and justification under clear-and-convincing standard)