In re P.L.B.
| Decision Date | 14 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 18CA19 |
| Citation | 2019 Ohio 1056 |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF: P.L.B. ADOPTION |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
APPEARANCES:
Matthew F. Loesch, Portsmouth, Ohio, for Appellants.
Jenna J. Waldo, Ironton, Ohio, for Appellee.
{¶1} Appellants, the child's biological mother and stepfather, appeal the trial court's judgment concluding that Appellee's (the biological father) consent to the adoption of the minor child is required and dismissing the stepfather's petition to adopt the minor child.
{¶2} In their sole assignment of error, Appellants contend that the trial court's finding that Appellee had justifiable cause for any failure to provide more than de minimis contact with the child or to provide maintenance and support for the child is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellants claim that the evidence does not show that Appellee had any justification for failing to have more than de minimis contact with the child and for failing to provide maintenance and support for the child. Appellants contend that Appellee's failure to have more than de minimis contact with the child is not justified because, although Appellee requested visits with the child, he requested the visits at inconvenient times or on the same day as the request. Appellants assert that Appellee's failure to provide maintenance and support for the child is not justified because he did not offer any reasonable rationale for failing to do so. Appellants also allege that Appellee failed to file a written objection to the adoption petition and that this failure means that his consent is not required.
{¶3} We do not agree with Appellants. Instead, the record contains some competent and credible evidence to support the trial court's finding that Appellee had justifiable cause for failing to have more frequent contact with the child and for failing to provide maintenance and support for the child. The evidence supports the court's findings that the mother frustrated Appellee's attempts to visit the child and that the mother hindered Appellee's ability to provide maintenance and support for the child. Thus, some evidence supports the court's findings that Appellee had justifiable cause for any failure to provide more than de minimis contact with the child or to provide maintenance and support.
{¶4} Appellants failed to argue during the trial court proceedings that Appellee's consent is not required because he did not file a written objection to the adoption petition. We will not consider the issue for the first time on appeal.
{¶5} Accordingly, we overrule appellants' sole assignment of error and affirm the trial court's judgment.
{¶6} Approximately four months after the stepfather and the mother married, the stepfather filed a petition to adopt the nearly three-year-old child. The petition alleged that Appellee's consent is not required for the following reasons: (1) Appellee failed without justifiable cause to provide more than de minimis contact with the child for a period of at least one year immediately preceding the filing of the adoption petition or the placement of the child in the petitioner's home; (2) Appellee failed without justifiable cause to provide for the maintenance and support of the child as required by law or judicial decree for a period of at least one year immediately preceding the filing of the adoption petition; and (3) Appellee failed to register with Ohio's putative father registry.
{¶7} In July 2018, the court held a hearing. The mother testified that Appellee saw the child a few times in the year preceding the adoption petition. She additionally stated that she asked Appellee to help pay for the child's diapers, the child's babysitter, and one of the child's medical bills. The mother alleged that Appellee did not provide any of the financial assistance that she requested.
{¶8} Appellee testified and explained that after the mother started dating her now-husband, the mother curtailed Appellee's involvement in the child's life and frustrated his attempts to visit the child. Appellee related that he would text the mother to arrange a time when he could see the child, but the mother often claimed to be busy at work or she would not respond at all. Appellee also stated that he asked the mother if she needed him to send any money. Appellee indicated that the mother responded that she did not need him "to send anything" and that if Appellee wanted to have "anything to do with [the child]," Appellee would "have to start taking care of him."
{¶9} Appellee explained that during the year preceding the filing of the adoption petition, he went to the child support office to attempt to establish child support. He further stated that he has provided diapers for the child on occasion and given the child some clothes and toys. Appellee also indicated that he offered to pay for things the child needed. Appellee testified that he offered to help the mother pay the medical bill she requested, and she told him that he could not make any payments towards it until an account was set up for Appellee. Appellee indicated that he did not give the mother any money for the child, because "[i]t would be considered a gift."
{¶10} Appellee explained that in November 2017, the mother asked him to give up his parental rights to the child. Appellee refused to give up his parental rights.
{¶11} On August 13, 2018, the trial court found that Appellee did not fail, without justifiable cause, to maintain more than de minimis contact with the child or to provide maintenance and support during the one-year period preceding the adoption petition. The court found that Appellee sought the Lawrence County Child Support Enforcement Agency's assistance to obtain a child support order during the year preceding the adoption petition. The court also found that the father had more than de minimis contact with the child and attempted to have additional contact with the child. The court determined that the mother did not facilitate visitation and that any failure was therefore justifiable.
{¶12} The court additionally found that any failure to provide maintenance and support for the child was with justifiable cause. The court noted that a child support order did not exist and that the mother "informed the father that she did not want cash from him." The court further found that the father "offered to buy whatever the child needed[,] including food and clothes," but "the mother refused his offers."
{¶13} The court also observed that
{¶14} The court found that The court found that Appellants failed to show that Appellee's consent is unnecessary. It thus dismissed the petition to adopt.
{¶15} Appellants timely appealed and raise one assignments of error:
"The Trial Court erred in finding that Appellee/Father Brian Thompson's consent to the adoption was required pursuant to ORC 3107.07."
{¶16} In their sole assignment of error, Appellants argue that the trial court erred by determining that Appellee's consent to adoption is required. Appellants first contend that the evidence does not support the trial court's finding that Appellee's failure to provide maintenance or support for the child was justifiable. Appellants recognize that the court found that the mother's conduct justified Appellee's failure, but they claim that the court's finding that the mother "frustrated the Appellee's attempts to provide support" "is unreasonable considering the testimony presented at the hearing." Appellants assert that Appellee admitted that he did not provide any financial or other assistance to help support the child during the one year preceding the adoption petition. Appellants also claim that when the mother asked Appellee to help pay a medical bill for the child, Appellee responded that the mother needed to obtain "better insurance." Appellants thus allege that the foregoing evidence establishes that Appellee's failure to provide maintenance or support was not justified.
{¶17} Appellants next assert that Appellee failed to have more than de minimis contact with the child and that his failure was not justified. Appellants contend that even though Appellee attempted to arrange visits with the child, Appellee requested the visits on "the same day or on otherwise inconvenient times." Appellants claim that the mother justifiably denied Appellee's requests for visitations because Appellee failed to request visits in a timelier fashion. Appellants also contend that Appellee failed to seek court intervention to obtain visitation time with the child.
{¶18} Appellants additionally argue that Appellee's consent is not required because he failed to file a written objection to the adoption petition.
{¶19} Appellee counters that the evidence supports the trial court's findings that any failures to maintain more than de minimis contact with the child or to provide maintenance or support were justified. Appellee contends that during the one-year period preceding the adoption petition, he had several visits with the child and "tirelessly" attempted to arrange visits with the child. Appellee asserts that the mother continuously frustrated his attempts to arrange visits with the child.
{¶20} Appellee also argues that he attempted to establish child...
To continue reading
Request your trial