Update on Ohio Adoption Law

Recently the Ohio Supreme Court held that a parent who has a no contact order, gives them a justifiable reason why they did not make contact within the look back periods, which could mean their consent would be necessary for an adoption.  In re Adoption of A.K., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-350.

Ohio law generally requires a parent’s consent for an adoption to move forward. But parents can lose their right to consent if they fail to maintain more than “de minimis” contact for one year prior to the filing of an adoption petition. A divided Supreme Court found that under R.C. 3107.07, abiding by a no-contact order enables a parent to retain the right to consent to the adoption of minor children without meeting the statutory requirement to remain in contact with the children.

The Court relied on a previous 2019 Supreme Court case, In re Adoption of B.I. and applied to the facts of the case. B.I.  to determine how to apply R.C. 3107.07, the law that removes a parent’s right to consent to an adoption if the parent fails to remain in contact with the children or fails to provide required maintenance and support.

Justice Stewart wrote that compliance with a court’s “no contact order” exempts the parent from the contact requirement. The Court granted the father of two girls, identified as A.K. and C.K., the right to object to the girls’ adoption by their maternal grandparents. The decision affirmed the ruling of the Eighth District Court of Appeals.

The Court had a second case which they heard oral arguments on,  regarding companionship rights after an adoption.  The lower court held that a maternal aunt did not have standing to seek visitation after the adoption.   However, the Court found that the appeal was vacated because there was not a final appealable order and remanding to the trial court. The dissent noted “the clarity of the law establishing that Davis may not pursue companionship under R.C. 3109.11, I would conclude that the trial court’s June 2 order is final and appealable under R.C. 2505.02(B)(2) and I would affirm the court of appeals’ judgment.’   Rachel Davis v. Tammie Nathaniel, et al.