In re Adoption of B.L.
| Decision Date | 09 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | Court of Appeals No. H-20-016 |
| Citation | 2021 Ohio 1221 |
| Parties | In re Adoption of B.L. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Trial Court No. AD 2019 00011
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Paul D. Dolce, for appellant.
Heather Niedermeier Heyman, for appellee.
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from the July 31, 2020 judgment of the Huron County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, by appellant, V.D.U., the mother of B.L. ("mother"). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶ 2} Mother sets forth one assignment of error:
The trial court erred when it determined mother's consent to not be necessary for the proposed adoption pursuant to ORC 3107.07(A)[.]
{¶ 3} In January 2011, B.L. was born to mother and father, who were not married. In 2013, father married appellee, Br.L. ("step-mother"). At some point, mother and father had a shared parenting plan for B.L.
{¶ 4} On September 3, 2015, a hearing was held before a magistrate in the Huron County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division ("2015 hearing"), and on September 10, 2015, the magistrate's decision was filed.
{¶ 5} Also on September 10, 2015, the juvenile court issued a judgment, adopting the magistrate's decision ("juvenile judgment"). The juvenile court terminated the shared parenting plan, and named father the residential parent and legal custodian of B.L. Mother was "not afforded parenting time with the minor child until she separately petitions the Court for parenting time, appears before the Court and submits to a hair-follicle drug screen that tests negative for all illegal substances and until further order of the Court." Mother was also ordered to pay child support for B.L.
{¶ 6} On October 4, 2019, step-mother filed a petition to adopt B.L. with the Huron County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, in which she alleged father's consent to the adoption was required but mother's consent was not required because mother failed without justifiable cause to provide more than de minimis contact with the child and failed without justifiable cause to provide for the maintenance and support of the child for at least a year before the adoption petition was filed. Father consented to the adoption; mother filed an objection. The probate court bifurcated the issues of mother'sconsent to the adoption and B.L.'s best interest, and on July 20, 2020, a hearing was held on whether mother's consent to the adoption of B.L. was necessary.
{¶ 7} On July 31, 2020, the probate court issued its judgment entry finding mother failed to provide more than de minimus contact with B.L. for at least one year before the adoption petition was filed and mother failed to provide for the support and maintenance of B.L. as required by law or judicial decree for at least one year before the adoption petition was filed. The court further found mother's consent to the proposed adoption of B.L. was not required. Mother timely appealed.
{¶ 8} Mother was called as the first witness by step-mother's attorney, and mother was cross-examined by step-mother's attorney. Mother testified she lives in Pennsylvania, and has resided at her current address for two years. Before that, she lived down the road for six months, prior to that she lived at a residence for two years, and before that she was living at an address for three years. Mother believed she provided all of these addresses to the court, but not to father.
{¶ 9} Mother last saw B.L. four years ago, right before the 2015 hearing, and she last spoke with B.L. The last thing mother mailed to B.L. was Mother used to send Christmas or birthday gifts for B.L. to father's mother, but recently stopped sending gifts as "the past year,[father's mother] would not [take the gifts] because [father] would not have contact with [his mother]."
{¶ 10} Mother has had her current phone number for a couple of months, and before that, she had her phone number for years. Mother had quite a few phone numbers when she was living in Ohio, and she had a couple when she first moved to Pennsylvania. She has not always provided father and step-mother with those phone numbers.
{¶ 11} Mother had father's phone number in the past, but when she changed phone carriers, she lost all of her contacts. When she had father's number, she tried to call and talk to B.L., but father ignored her. Mother said about a year ago, she "tried to call [father] from a number that my mom had; and he called me back and said it was the wrong number * * * and then hung up." She did not think she ever had step-mother's phone number, or "[m]aybe a really long time ago." If mother tried to contact step-mother, it would be on Facebook Messenger, but step-mother blocked her on Facebook.
{¶ 12} The last address that mother had for father was when he was living with his mother, before the 2015 hearing. Mother was told father moved shortly thereafter, and father's mother "refused to give me [mother] an address, because she didn't want to upset [father]." Mother asked father's mother multiple times for father's address and the school B.L. attended, but father's mother refused to tell mother.
{¶ 13} Mother said she tried to refile the juvenile case a year to a year and one-half after the 2015 hearing using father's mother's address because father's address was confidential, but "[t]hey would not file it for me." Mother stated "I have been unable toopen a case because I don't have an exact address for him specifically." She offered to send the filing to father's job but "they wanted the correct address for him."
{¶ 14} Mother was shown a motion she filed in the probate court, which motion stated, inter alia that "there is an open case for visitation of [B.L.] I filed before receiving adoption and rejecting adoption." Mother admitted this was a lie. Mother explained Mother assumed she read the paperwork before she signed it. Mother then invoked her right against self-incrimination and refused to answer any more questions with respect to the motion.
{¶ 15} Mother was presented with a letter which she submitted to the juvenile court in 2015, which purports to be from a "CYS Case Worker." Mother again invoked her right against self-incrimination and refused to answer any more questions with respect to the letter. Mother was then shown a paragraph from a magistrate's order which set forth "the Director of Butler County Children Resources has submitted a letter to Attorney [for father] stating that the letter [mother] submitted to the Court was a fake and not signed by any staff member of their agency."
{¶ 16} Mother testified she made another attempt to refile Mother said her
{¶ 17} Mother stated she did She said the last time she looked to see if father and step-mother bought a house was in June 2019, and she was unable to find anything. Mother did not think she searched voting records. Mother Googled step-mother's name and "came up with a bunch of different thing that you could pay and do or, you know, background checks, stuff like that." Mother "paid for a couple of them, and it was a dead end all the time." Mother found an address Mother did not try the address.
{¶ 18} Mother was shown exhibits dated "September 29th, 2018, May 18th, 2019 [and] * * * December 7th" which were: a message from mother to her mother, where they were trying to look up father; and messages from mother's mother, on her Facebook account, "which was actually me, to [father], where I tried to get in contact with [father] and got no reply." Mother was seeking pictures of B.L. Mother was asked about a White Pages search from August 8, 2019, where her mother searched for step-mother, then father.
{¶ 19} Mother testified she did not have contact information for any other family members. When she lived in Ohio, she probably had contact information for Sherry Tallman, but mother said she did not have any current contact information.
{¶ 20} Mother worked at Chili's restaurant for over two years before she was laid off due to Coronavirus. She believed her court-ordered support for B.L. was $80 a month. Her income for 2019 was "20 some thousand." Mother worked continuously at Chili's from October 4, 2018 to October 4, 2019, and she thought she was paying child support regularly during that time. She was unaware if the full amount of child support was taken out of her paycheck, because "I never, like I don't ever look at my pay stubs, so I don't know how much is actually being taken out." Mother never sent any additional money to father for child support, nor did she send anything else to B.L., like clothes or supplies.
{¶ 21} On direct examination by her attorney, mother testified she believed there were other amounts deducted for child support from her paycheck but she was "unsure of what the...
To continue reading
Request your trial