IN RE ADOPTION OF J.A.S. ET AL.; R.S. ET AL., APPELLANTS; J.W. ET AL., APPELLEES.
Nos. 2009-1695 and 2009–1980
Supreme Court of Ohio
July 15, 2010
126 Ohio St.3d 145, 2010-Ohio-3270
(Nos. 2009-1695 and 2009–1980—Submitted April 21, 2010—Decided July 15, 2010.)
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J.
{¶ 1} We must resolve a conflict of law certified to us by the Ninth District Court of Appeals on the following question: “Does
{¶ 2} For the reasons that follow, we answer the question in the affirmative. There is no exception in
{¶ 3} In January 2006, the Lorain County Juvenile Court adjudicated J.A.S. and J.N.S., minor children, neglected and dependent. Ten months later, the court determined that the mother had failed to complete the case plan for reunification and that she was unable to provide stability for her children. The
{¶ 4} Two years later, appellants filed a petition in the Lorain County Probate Court to adopt the children. They alleged that the children‘s biological parents had failed to communicate with or support the children for one year immediately preceding the filing of the adoption petition and that their consent to the adoption was therefore not required. The appellants also moved to dispense with the preadoption placement requirements of
{¶ 5} The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the probate court‘s denial of appellants’ motion to dispense with preadoption placement procedures. The appellate court concluded that
{¶ 6} We determined that a conflict exists, and we accepted appellants’ discretionary appeal on the same issue. The cases have been consolidated. 123 Ohio St.3d 1492, 2009-Ohio-6015, 916 N.E.2d 1073, and 123 Ohio St.3d 1494, 2009-Ohio-6015, 916 N.E.2d 1074.
{¶ 7}
{¶ 8} “(D) No child shall be placed or received for adoption or with intent to adopt unless placement is made by a public children services agency, an institution or association that is certified by the department of job and family services under
{¶ 9} “(1) Prior to the placement and receiving of the child, the parent or parents of the child personally have applied to, and appeared before, the probate
{¶ 10} “(2) The court ordered an independent home study of the proposed placement to be conducted as provided in
{¶ 11} “(3) The court has approved of record the proposed placement.”
{¶ 12} Appellants contend that
{¶ 13}
{¶ 14}
{¶ 15}
{¶ 16} Appellants argue that it is unnecessary to apply
{¶ 17} There is a significant difference between a court‘s placement pursuant to an award of legal custody and a court‘s approval over the placement of a child in a prospective adoptive home. Here, the juvenile court‘s order that awarded legal custody of the children was in a child-dependency action. The county had intervened and removed the children from the home but had not pursued termination of parental rights. During the disposition hearing, the juvenile court advised the parties of their rights. The biological parents retained “residual parental rights, privileges, and responsibilities,” which included reasonable visitation and the right to deny consent to adoption.
{¶ 18}
{¶ 19} Appellants also contend that the placement was not surreptitious, because it was part of the dependency action, and that biological parents are notified of the adoption process because their consent is necessary unless a statutory exception applies.
{¶ 20} A.W.K. minimized concern for the lack of notice to the biological parents when
{¶ 21} Finally, appellants claim that
{¶ 22} We must strictly comply with the statutory requirements in
Judgment affirmed.
PFEIFER, O‘CONNOR, O‘DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur.
BROWN, C.J., not participating.
Rothgery & Associates and Joel D. Fritz, for appellants.
Elizabeth I. Cooke, for appellee J.W.
Flanagan, Lieberman, Hoffman & Swaim and Richard Hempfling, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Adoption Law Roundtable.
Voorhees & Levy, L.L.D., and Michael R. Voorhees, urging reversal for amicus curiae American Academy of Adoption Attorneys.