In re Adoption of K.A.H.
Ohio Court of Appeals
2015 Ohio 1971 (2015)
Facts
A stepfather, W.J.H., petitioned for adoption of his two stepchildren, K.A.C. and P.C.C., in an Ohio court. The children’s mother, S.H., was married to the children’s biological father, P.C., at the time the children were born. When S.H. and P.C. divorced, they agreed to a shared parenting plan in which P.C. would not pay child support, which was incorporated in the divorce decree. P.C. moved to the United Kingdom. In 2011, S.H. and W.J.H. were married. Between 2011 and 2013, P.C. did not see his children or pay for their support. P.C. did, however, make 91 minutes’ worth of long-distance phone calls, costing a total of approximately $174, to speak to his children, although he was not always successful in actually speaking to them. P.C. also sent his children cards and gifts. In 2013, W.J.H. filed his petition for adoption of the children, and P.C. filed a timely written objection. W.J.H. argued that P.C.’s consent to the adoption was not required under Ohio law, because P.C. did not provide more than de minimis contact with his children and did not support his children. The probate court held that P.C. did maintain more than de minimis contact with his children and therefore his consent was required. W.J.H. appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Tyack, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 710,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
