O/T Interesting Stepparent Adoption Ruling From OH

[meanyjack]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ohio.

I thought I'd post this for people to look at. An interesting ruling came out from the OH SUPCO yesterday (Wed 1-25-12) regarding stepparent adoption when a parent has NOT made court-ordered support payments for a period of time, and if a parent's consent is required.

Dad didn't make court-ordered support, but sent some $$ directly to kid in form of cash and/or gift cards. Mom's new hubby pursued a stepparent adoption & it appears it was granted by the Probate Court (since Dad didn't pay court-ordered support for at least a year).
Dad appealed and higher court overruled the lower court.
Dad's argument was that these should be considered 'support.' Court unanimously disagreed. This ruling overruled a higher court's ruling and reinstated a lower court's (Probate Court) ruling.

WKSU News: Supreme Court says small gifts don't equal child support
Link to OH Supreme Court ruling summary:
Supreme Court of Ohio Case Summaries

The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today that when a biological parent of a child has failed, without justifiable cause, to make any court-ordered monthly child support payments for at least one year prior to the filing of another person’s petition to adopt that child, small monetary gifts made by the parent directly to the child during that year do not constitute payment of “support and maintenance as required by law or judicial decree,” and therefore, pursuant to state adoption laws, a probate court may approve the child’s adoption without the consent of the biological parent.

The Court’s 7-0 decision, authored by Justice Terrence O’Donnell, reversed a decision of the 9th District Court of Appeals and reinstated a judgment of the Summit County Probate Court.

 

[Proserpina]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ohio.

I thought I'd post this for people to look at. An interesting ruling came out from the OH SUPCO yesterday (Wed 1-25-12) regarding stepparent adoption when a parent has NOT made court-ordered support payments for a period of time, and if a parent's consent is required.

Dad didn't make court-ordered support, but sent some $$ directly to kid in form of cash and/or gift cards. Mom's new hubby pursued a stepparent adoption & it appears it was granted by the Probate Court (since Dad didn't pay court-ordered support for at least a year).
Dad appealed and higher court overruled the lower court.
Dad's argument was that these should be considered 'support.' Court unanimously disagreed. This ruling overruled a higher court's ruling and reinstated a lower court's (Probate Court) ruling.

WKSU News: Supreme Court says small gifts don't equal child support
Link to OH Supreme Court ruling summary:
Supreme Court of Ohio Case Summaries

I'll of course defer to OG with this one - but honestly, I'm not seeing why this is interesting or new.

Am I missing something?

 

[Ohiogal]

I'll of course defer to OG with this one - but honestly, I'm not seeing why this is interesting or new.

Am I missing something?

Because you know how we say CONTACT matters? The Ohio Supreme Court said, depends on the TYPE of contact. Gifts and such are NOT sufficient if you are not supporting the child as required by court order. So yeah, I think there is interesting and new info obtained here.

 

[LdiJ]

Because you know how we say CONTACT matters? The Ohio Supreme Court said, depends on the TYPE of contact. Gifts and such are NOT sufficient if you are not supporting the child as required by court order. So yeah, I think there is interesting and new info obtained here.

I find it a little disturbing. The entire "without consent" ruling appears to be based on lack of paying child support only. There did not appear to be any discussion about the relationship between the child and bio-dad...at least none in the link that meanyjack provided. One would think that contact in the context of a relationship between the child and bio-dad would be a critical issue.

 

[Proserpina]

Because you know how we say CONTACT matters?

I know that's what used to be the party line here, yes...you know the thing where we'd say "one payment in 12 months is considered contact"?

But I haven't seen anyone say that in awhile, if only because in most states that's OFTEN no longer the case and there have been multiple threads attesting to that.

The Ohio Supreme Court said, depends on the TYPE of contact. Gifts and such are NOT sufficient if you are not supporting the child as required by court order. So yeah, I think there is interesting and new info obtained here.

If someone can learn from this, I'm so good with that it's not even cute.

 

[Ohiogal]

I find it a little disturbing. The entire "without consent" ruling appears to be based on lack of paying child support only. There did not appear to be any discussion about the relationship between the child and bio-dad...at least none in the link that meanyjack provided. One would think that contact in the context of a relationship between the child and bio-dad would be a critical issue.

I have to more thoroughly read the whole ruling but I believe that dad did NOT have personal contact beyond sending a few gifts throughout the year to his child. And if that was the ONLY contact, that is not enough contact. No contact for a year is enough to do an adoption WITHOUT biological parent approval.

Depending on the age of the child, the child also gives approval for the adoption.

 

[LdiJ]

I have to more thoroughly read the whole ruling but I believe that dad did NOT have personal contact beyond sending a few gifts throughout the year to his child. And if that was the ONLY contact, that is not enough contact. No contact for a year is enough to do an adoption WITHOUT biological parent approval.

Depending on the age of the child, the child also gives approval for the adoption.

I had not thought of the above. The timeline certainly indicates that the child could have been old enough that her consent to the adoption was needed.

 

[mistoffolees]

I find it a little disturbing. The entire "without consent" ruling appears to be based on lack of paying child support only. There did not appear to be any discussion about the relationship between the child and bio-dad...at least none in the link that meanyjack provided. One would think that contact in the context of a relationship between the child and bio-dad would be a critical issue.

Actually, that's not quite the way I read it. It said 'failure to pay child support WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE'. Reading the opinion, if there is justifiable cause for non-payment, it can not be used to terminate parental rights.

I do, however, have some of the same concerns. As I read the decision, it says nothing about contact. So even if NCP saw the child every day and was more in the child's life than CP, the court could terminate his parental rights and allow step-parent adoption if he doesn't pay child support for a year. I'm having trouble reconciling that with "best interests of a child". Clearly, NCP should be paying CS. Clearly there should be serious penalties for non-payment. I'm just not sure that the penalty fits the crime in this case.

 

[meanyjack]

Here's the link to the actual pdf, which is more detailed than the summary:

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2012/2012-Ohio-236.pdf


Reading the opinion by the justices of the OH SUPCO, it pretty much sounds like Dad did not exercise any parenting time. Reason I believe that is because looking at how the justices described "support" from Black's Law Dictionary as: "“support” as “ustenance or maintenance; esp., articles such as food and clothing that allow one to live in the degree of comfort to which one is accustomed.” So, I would presume that IF Dad was seeing the child, there could be an argument that he was (at least) providing some of this stuff at his own residence when the was child with him.

Plus, I would think if he did, this case wouldn't have gone this far, and/or, that would've been one of the issues in the appeal. And that doesn't appear to be.

And, as Misto pointed out, the "without good cause" issue, even one of the justices noted this: "In this case, however, the probate court concluded that no justifiable cause existed, and Stephen did not challenge that determination in the court of appeals and does not dispute it here. "

The original order was issued by Florida, and it appears Mom moved to Ohio. So, obviously jurisdiction was transferred to OH.

 

[LdiJ]

Here's the link to the actual pdf, which is more detailed than the summary:

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2012/2012-Ohio-236.pdf


Reading the opinion by the justices of the OH SUPCO, it pretty much sounds like Dad did not exercise any parenting time. Reason I believe that is because looking at how the justices described "support" from Black's Law Dictionary as: "“support” as “ustenance or maintenance; esp., articles such as food and clothing that allow one to live in the degree of comfort to which one is accustomed.” So, I would presume that IF Dad was seeing the child, there could be an argument that he was (at least) providing some of this stuff at his own residence when the was child with him.

Plus, I would think if he did, this case wouldn't have gone this far, and/or, that would've been one of the issues in the appeal. And that doesn't appear to be.

And, as Misto pointed out, the "without good cause" issue, even one of the justices noted this: "In this case, however, the probate court concluded that no justifiable cause existed, and Stephen did not challenge that determination in the court of appeals and does not dispute it here. "

The original order was issued by Florida, and it appears Mom moved to Ohio. So, obviously jurisdiction was transferred to OH.

I still find the ruling disturbing. Reading the whole thing didn't make me feel any less uneasy about it. Nothing in the case addresses whether or not bio-dad and the child had any kind of relationship. If they really didn't have one, then that's fine, but the case doesn't address it at all.

 

[Ohiogal]

I still find the ruling disturbing. Reading the whole thing didn't make me feel any less uneasy about it. Nothing in the case addresses whether or not bio-dad and the child had any kind of relationship. If they really didn't have one, then that's fine, but the case doesn't address it at all.

You might want to read the court of appeals case and briefs from whence this appeal came. It would take digging but that would address it.

 

[Ohiogal]

I still find the ruling disturbing. Reading the whole thing didn't make me feel any less uneasy about it. Nothing in the case addresses whether or not bio-dad and the child had any kind of relationship. If they really didn't have one, then that's fine, but the case doesn't address it at all.

The statement of facts in the appellant's brief states that the father had not seen his child since early 2007. He sent her all of $185 in an Aeropostle gift and cash. during the year preceding the adoption. Mom moved from Florida to Ohio and Mr. Beban remained in Florida with his paramour Ms. Eberhart. He had a child support order of $1000 a month and when had fallen behind on it for three months but was substantially caught up until 2007 when he again lost his job. He had paid over $78000 in child support when he again lost his job due to his mental health issues. He did not see his child from early 2007 and the adoption was filed on September 12, 2008. During that time Mr. Beban wasn't paying any child support and wasn't earning any money according to the exhibits filed in the case. He was also hospitalized for part of the time in a mental facility.

 

[LdiJ]

The statement of facts in the appellant's brief states that the father had not seen his child since early 2007. He sent her all of $185 in an Aeropostle gift and cash. during the year preceding the adoption. Mom moved from Florida to Ohio and Mr. Beban remained in Florida with his paramour Ms. Eberhart. He had a child support order of $1000 a month and when had fallen behind on it for three months but was substantially caught up until 2007 when he again lost his job. He had paid over $78000 in child support when he again lost his job due to his mental health issues. He did not see his child from early 2007 and the adoption was filed on September 12, 2008. During that time Mr. Beban wasn't paying any child support and wasn't earning any money according to the exhibits filed in the case. He was also hospitalized for part of the time in a mental facility.

It makes more sense to me now.

 

[nextwife]

I don't know. A CP can go through a child's entire childhood and never earn a penny toward supporting the child and not be at risk of losing parental rights due to being unable or unwilling to find employment.

This Dad was (mentally) ill, which may have interferred with his ability to obtain or hold a job. My parent, later in my childhood,, was terminally ill and disabled and unable to then work and provide support - and also suffered some mental health issues due to brain surgery. His brain issues, thankfully, did not interfere with his right to remain a parent. But what if he'd been a NCP with some mom who wanted to play musical daddy's? In this scenario, he could have been stripped of rights because his brain issues kept him from earning (and travelling) during the last five years.

Additionally, mom created a geographic barrier to dad seeing the child. Was mom, who created the distance, supposed to take care of transportation costs? Did she? If dad lost a series of jobs due to brain issues, perhaps he had no funds to travel out of state and see his child?

To me, this smacks of an admission fee to stay one's parent. And would tend to disproportionately affect male parents, as women get unmarried custody by default. Thus non-earner moms get to stay the parent, but non-earner dad's don't, because they are likely to be the NCP?

 

[Ohiogal]

I don't know. A CP can go through a child's entire childhood and never earn a penny toward supporting the child and not be at risk of losing parental rights due to being unable or unwilling to find employment.

This Dad was (mentally) ill, which may have interferred with his ability to obtain or hold a job. My parent, later in my childhood,, was terminally ill and disabled and unable to then work and provide support - and also suffered some mental health issues due to brain surgery. His brain issues, thankfully, did not interfere with his right to remain a parent. But what if he'd been a NCP with some mom who wanted to play musical daddy's? In this scenario, he could have been stripped of rights because his brain issues kept him from earning (and travelling) during the last five years.

Additionally, mom created a geographic barrier to dad seeing the child. Was mom, who created the distance, supposed to take care of transportation costs? Did she? If dad lost a series of jobs due to brain issues, perhaps he had no funds to travel out of state and see his child?

To me, this smacks of an admission fee to stay one's parent. And would tend to disproportionately affect male parents, as women get unmarried custody by default. Thus non-earner moms get to stay the parent, but non-earner dad's don't, because they are likely to be the NCP?

That wasn't what this was about. It was not about money. It was about he had no contact (phone or visits) since February 2007 except providing a total of $185 in a gift card/cash through September 2008. Money was the reason on appeal because it was the reason the magistrate found is consent was needed but he also had no relationship. I posted the law on CanM's thread for Ohio (and she has since deleted because she didn't like being told she was a legal stranger to the child and because she LIED to the child about being her mother didn't mean that the adoption would go through).