In re Adoption of T.G.
* * * * *
M.H., pro se.
Christopher P. Fiegl, for appellees.
* * * * *
HANDWORK, J.
{¶ 1} This сase is before the court on appeal from the judgment of the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, whiсh on December 21, 2009, following an evidentiary hearing, found that consent of the biological father was not necessary in order to proceed with the adoption of father‘s child, T.G., because father
{¶ 2} “Assignment of Error 1
{¶ 3} “The trial court denied [father] equal protection and due process of the law in violation of fourteenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution and first amendment when finding that he failed without justifiable cause to communicate with [child] during the one year period prior to the filing of the Petition for Adoption is contrаry to Law and is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶ 4} “Assignment of Error 2
{¶ 5} “The trial court denied [father] of due process of law аnd his liberty interest in [child] in violation of the first and fourteenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution when it found that the father failed without justifiable сause to provide for maintenance and support of his child required by law and the adoption petition may рroceed without his consent is against manifest weight of evidence and contrary to law and general assembly mandates.”
{¶ 6} We will consider father‘s assignments of error together. In Ohio, a child cannot be adopted without the consent оf the biological parents unless some specific statutory exemption applies to remove the consent requirement. McGinty v. Jewish Children‘s Bur. (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 159, 161.
{¶ 7} On February 4, 2009, maternal grandmother filed a petition for adoption of the minor child, who had been living with grandmother since birth in 2001. Mother consented to adoption on January 23, 2009. Father, who was incarcerated from the onset and throughout the pendency of this case, objected to the adoption.
{¶ 8} The relevant facts are as follows. On July 26, 2005, the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas gave custody to grandmothеr and ordered father to pay child support. On November 6, 2009, a hearing was held on the adoption petition. Although father had been served with notice of the hearing and filed a pleading objecting to the adoption, father was nоt present for the hearing and was not represented by counsel. Father had filed a pleading with the trial court asserting that his consent was required because he attempted to contact the child, but was thwarted by grandmother, and that he made child support payments from his inmate account while in prison. The trial court, however, determined that father‘s unattested statements contained in the pleading could not be considered as evidence. We agree with the trial court‘s finding in this regard.
{¶ 9} At the hearing, grandmother and grandmother‘s husband testified that they received no money or support from father during the year preceding the filing of the petition. Grandmother testified that she received notices from Children‘s Sеrvices Enforcement Agency (“CSEA“) indicating that between $3.38 and $4.50 was withdrawn from father‘s inmate account on a monthly basis. Grandmоther testified that father was approximately $2,400 in arrears and owed the state for Medicaid assistance it prоvided to the child, and that these amounts were applied toward his arrears. Additionally, grandmother testified that none of the money withdrawn from father‘s inmate account was sent to her for the child‘s support. Grandmother and grandmother‘s husband also testified that father never contacted or attempted to contact the child during the relevant time pеriod.
{¶ 10} Based on the evidence presented, the trial court found that, pursuant to
{¶ 11} On consideration whereof, the court finds substantial justice has been done the party complaining and the judgment of the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, is affirmed. Father is ordered to pay the costs of this appеal pursuant to App.R. 24.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See, also, 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Peter M. Handwork, J.
_______________________________
JUDGE
Arlene Singer, J.
_______________________________
Keila D. Cosme, J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio‘s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court‘s web site at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.