O/T Interesting Stepparent Adoption Ruling From OH

[tuffbrk]

I ditto Nexxie's concerns...

 

[mistoffolees]

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?

The decision quite clearly says that failure to pay support is only an issue if there is no justifiable reason. If NCP is unemployed or disabled, that is probably justifiable reason.

I think that the reason the visitation is getting lost is that in the original trial, it was claimed that Dad never visited or supported the kids. Dad did not deny the lack of visitation, but did deny the lack of support, using his Christmas present to claim that he supported the child. What this decision does is simply clarifies 'support' and claims that giving occasional gifts to the child does NOT count as support. The supreme court did not rule on anything related to visitation because visitation was not part of the appeal.

It sounds like in this case, Dad's lack of contact was never in question. In a case where Dad was in contact, I don't think the adoption would have gone through even if Dad never paid support.

Given that, it's not that bad a decision (although it is far more narrow than it looks at first glance).

 

[meanyjack]

It sounds like in this case, Dad's lack of contact was never in question. In a case where Dad was in contact, I don't think the adoption would have gone through even if Dad never paid support.
Given that, it's not that bad a decision (although it is far more narrow than it looks at first glance).

I would agree.

It'll be interesting to see what doors this opens up re: stepparent adoptions in OH. I know there's already been some 'concerns' because of this ruling.