In re Scheehle, 98AP-1248.
| Decision Date | 09 September 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 98AP-1248.,98AP-1248. |
| Citation | 730 NE 2d 472,134 Ohio App.3d 167 |
| Parties | In re SCHEEHLE, n.k.a. Ford, Appellant; Carpenter, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
James S. Albers, for appellant.
Gary S. Wellbaum, for appellee.
Plaintiff-appellant, Darlene Ford, f.k.a. Darlene Scheehle, appeals from a judgment in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch, ordering appellant to refund to defendant-appellee, Travis Carpenter, all child support paid during the effective period of an interlocutory order of adoption.
The child that is the subject of this adoption action, Madyson Ford, f.k.a. Madyson Scheehle, was born on December 12, 1993, the daughter of appellant Darlene Ford. By judgment entry journalized October 19, 1994, the juvenile branch determined that appellee, Travis Carpenter, was the biological father of Madyson. The judgment established the father-child relationship between appellee and his minor child and set child support in the amount of $433.28 per month. The order makes no mention of visitation rights between father and child.
Appellant was married on January 24, 1997, to Timothy Ford, who subsequently filed his petition on February 21, 1997, for a step-parent adoption with the Franklin County Probate Court. The petition asserts that, as a statutory ground for proceeding without appellee's consent to the adoption, appellee had failed without justifiable cause to communicate with the child for a period of at least one year immediately preceding the filing of the adoption petition, as provided in R.C. 3107.07(A). The probate court entered an interlocutory order of adoption on July 25, 1997, followed, after the six-month statutory period, by a final order of adoption on January 26, 1998.
The sole issue in this appeal is whether appellee was liable to appellant for child support during the six-month period following the interlocutory order of adoption, but prior to the issuance of the final order. Appellee filed his motion in the juvenile branch seeking to terminate his child support obligation as of the effective date of the interlocutory order of adoption. The initial magistrate's decision and recommendation found that appellee's child support obligation would not terminate until the entry of the final order of adoption. Appellee filed objections to the magistrate's decision, and in an entry filed September 1, 1998, the court sustained the objections finding that appellee's obligation terminated upon the entering of the interlocutory order of adoption. The court also found that appellee's obligation to provide health insurance and other medical expenses would also terminate at that time.
Appellant has timely appealed from the trial court's judgment. Initially we note that appellant's brief fails to conform with App.R. 16(A)(3), because it does not contain "a statement of the assignments of error presented for review, with reference to the place in the record where each error is reflected." However, because the narrow legal issue raised in this appeal is clearly discernable from the record and the arguments presented in the parties' briefs, we find that no material prejudice to appellee results from this failure to conform to the Appellate Rules, and we shall proceed to address the merits of the appeal.
We define the issue before us as whether a biological father's child support obligation should terminate upon the issuance of an interlocutory order of adoption, pursuant to a petition filed by the adoptive father. Both parties agree that this is a question of first impression before the courts of Ohio.
R.C. 3107.15 governs final and interlocutory decrees of adoption:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M.D.C v. K.D
... ... Nevada v. Vine, 99 Nev. 278, 662 P.2d 295 (1983); ... Gabriel v. Gabriel, 519 N.W.2d 293 (N.D.1994); ... In re Scheehle, 134 Ohio App.3d 167, 730 N.E.2d 472 (1999); ... McCabe, supra; ... Kauffman v. Truett, 771 A.2d 36 (Pa.Super.Ct.2001); 39 So.3d 1108 ... ...
-
Ex parte M.D.C., No. 10771625 (Ala. 10/1/2009)
... ... Cent. Code § 14-15-14(1) (a)). The identical language used in Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3107.15(A)(1) convinced the court in In re Scheehle , 134 Ohio App. 3d 167, 169, 730 N.E.2d 472, 474 (1999), that an interlocutory adoption order absolved the natural father of the duty to pay child ... ...
-
Mdc v. Petitioner
... ... Cent.Code § 14-15-14(1)(a)). The identical language used in Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 3107.15(A)(1) convinced the court in ... In re Scheehle, 134 Ohio App.3d 167, 169, 730 N.E.2d 472, 474 (1999), that an interlocutory adoption order absolved the natural father of the duty to pay child ... ...
-
DHS EX REL. OVERSTREET v. Overstreet
... ... Vine, 99 Nev. 278, 662 P.2d 295, 297-98 (1983); Gabriel v. Gabriel, 519 N.W.2d 293, 295 (N.D.1994); In re Scheehle, 134 Ohio App.3d 167, 730 N.E.2d 472, 475 (1999); Kauffman v. Truett, 771 A.2d 36, 39 (Pa.Super.2001); Coffey v. Vasquez, 290 S.C. 348, 350 S.E.2d ... ...