Case Information
*1
[Cite as
In re Adoption of C.M.F.
,
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY
ADOPTION OF: C.M.F., et al. :
CASE NOS. CA2013-06-090 : CA2013-06-091 : O P I N I O N 10/25/2013 :
APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
PROBATE DIVISION
Case No. PA12-11-103 Daniel J. Pricard, 110 Old Street, Monroe, Ohio 45050, for respondent-appellant Bradley R. Hoyt, 7577 Central Park Boulevard, Suite 216, Mason, Ohio 45050, for petitioner- appellee
M. POWELL, J. Appellant, the biological father of two children, appeals a decision of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, finding his consent to the adoption of the children is not required. Appellant is the biological father of C.M.F. and J.R.F., who were born in 2001
and 2005, respectively. Appellant and the children's mother never married, but the parents were subject to custody and child support orders issued by the Butler County Juvenile Court. The petitioner in this case, G.M.F., became the children's step-father in July 2009, when he *2 and the mother married. Appellant was arrested in December 2011 and subsequently sentenced to one
year in prison for failing to register as a sex offender. While in prison, appellant failed to pay child support as required under the juvenile court order. On November 21, 2012, the step-father filed a petition to adopt the children.
The petition alleged that appellant's consent to the adoption was not required because he had failed to support the children for one year preceding the filing of the petition. The probate court held a hearing on April 17, 2013 to determine whether the father's consent to the adoption was necessary. At the hearing, the children's mother testified that the last child support payment she received prior to the filing of the adoption petition was on November 15, 2011. She indicated that there were no support payments, and no money or gifts received by the children from their father from November 2011 until March 28, 2013 when she again received a child support payment. Likewise, the step-father testified that the children did not receive anything from their father from November 15, 2011 until March 28, 2013. Appellant testified at the hearing that he was in prison during 2012. He
admitted that he did not pay any child support from November 15, 2011 to November 2012, the year immediately prior to the filing of the adoption petition. He testified that he was in prison and only earned $20 a month, which he used to buy necessities and some snacks. Appellant testified that he was unable to arrange payments to be taken out of the $20 a month he received in prison. He stated that he sent a letter to the child support agency but they never took out money for support. He later testified that he received a court order allowing a reduction in child support and indicating that child support was going to be taken from appellant's prison account. Appellant's mother testified that she gave appellant money *3 while in prison, which she estimated to be around $300 in 2012. In a decision issued May 15, 2013, the probate court found that appellant's
consent to the adoption was not necessary because he failed to support the children in the year preceding the filing of the adoption petition. Appellant now appeals that decision, raising a sole assignment of error for our review in which he argues that the court erred in determining his consent to the adoption was not required. The right of natural parents to the care and custody of their child is one of the
most precious and fundamental in law. In re A.N.L. , 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2004-11-131,
CA2005-04-046,
preceding the adoption petition, the parent failed without justifiable cause to have more than de minimus contact with the child or that the parent failed to provide support and maintenance for the child. R.C. 3107.07(A). When the petitioner alleges that a parent's consent is not required based on a
failure to provide support for the child, the burden is on the petitioner to establish by clear
and convincing evidence both that the parent has failed to support the child for the requisite
one-year period and that this failure was without justifiable cause. In re Adoption of M.B. ,
be based on a failure to make payments as required by law or judicial decree. In re M.B. at ¶
20; R.C. 3107.07(A). The issue of whether justifiable cause exists when a parent is
incarcerated is a factually specific determination based on the circumstances and evidence
presented at the hearing. See In re D.R. , 7th Dist. Belmont No. 11 BE 11,
failed to comply with the order to have funds taken out of his prison account for child support. He contends that if this had occurred, child support payments would have been made. Appellant also argues that the paternal grandmother spent time with the children while he was in prison and provided toys, clothes, food and lodging for them, which should be considered evidence of maintenance and support provided as a direct result of the father. As mentioned above, the petition for adoption was filed on November 21, 2012. The trial court found, and the parties agree, that no support was paid from November 21, 2011 to the date the petition was filed. Therefore, the only issue was whether justifiable cause existed for the failure to support the children.
*5
The trial court found that according to records from the BCCSA, appellant's last
child support payment prior to the adoption petition was on November 15, 2011. The court
also found that appellant was arrested in late December 2011 and that appellant failed to
present any evidence of a justifiable cause for his failure to support from November 15 until
his arrest in late December. The trial court further found that although appellant initially
presented facially justifiable cause for his failure to pay while he was in prison, the evidence
as a whole established that justifiable cause did not exist for the failure to pay child support.
The question of whether justifiable cause has been proven by clear and
convincing evidence in a particular case is a determination for the probate court. In re Masa ,
that a parent is incarcerated. Dallas v. Dotson ,
justifiable cause did not exist for appellant's failure to pay child support. First, as mentioned above, appellant's last support payment was November 15, 2011 and he was not incarcerated until late December 2011. Appellant did not present any evidence regarding his *6 failure to pay child support during this month-and-a-half time period prior to his incarceration and the record does not contain any testimony or evidence regarding the failure to pay child support during this time. In addition, appellant did not make any payments, even minimal payments,
while he was in prison. While appellant testified that he tried to have money taken out of his prison account, and that he sent a letter to the BCCSA, his testimony on this issue is general and imprecise. There is no evidence when during his incarceration appellant wrote to the BCCSA. At one point in the hearing, appellant testified that he tried to have money taken out and he sent BCCSA a letter. Later, when questioned about the letter he received from the BCCSA reducing his child support, he stated it was the order "that I sent to have my child support lowered while I was in prison." While he testified that he tried and there was no way he was aware of to pay
child support while in prison, appellant's testimony on this issue does not evidence a strong
desire to provide continued support to his children while in prison. Compare In re Adoption of
C.L.B. , 191 Ohio App.3d 64,
"prison pay" on hygiene and personal items and admitted that he purchased items such as
snacks with the money. In addition, during his incarceration, appellant's mother sent a total
of around $300, which was placed in appellant's prison account. Appellant did not testify
*7
regarding how this money was used. Appellate courts reviewing cases involving incarcerated
parents have determined justifiable cause does not exist when prisoners fail to pay child
support, but use money available to them for non-essential use. See In re A.M.W. , 9th Dist.
Medina Nos. 07CA0062-M, 07CA0063-M,
children by the grandmother should be considered support by him to the children. At the
hearing, appellant testified that he did not direct his mother to provide any of these items for
the children on his behalf, and acknowledged that it was his responsibility to provide support.
In addition, the failure to provide "support and maintenance" pursuant to R.C. 3107.07(A)
must be based on a failure to make payments as required by law or judicial decree. In re
M.B. ,
of the relevant time period, the trial court was in the best position to observe the demeanor of the parties and assess the credibility and accuracy of the testimony, and we cannot find the trial court's decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.
HENDRICKSON, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur.