Case Law
Troxel V Granville
Santkosky
Fundamental Rights of Parent
Ohio Cases
Esch
Boyer V Boyer
In re Perales
Hooks
Fisher vs. Hasenjager
Kougher V Kougher
Dillinger v. Bryslan - Move Away Change of Circumstance
Child Support
Linam V Linam
Pauley - on Automatic Deviations
Marker
Child Support to Non-custodial Parent
Frey
Kanel v Kanel
McCauley v McCauley
Prusia
Warren
Grandparents Rights
In re Whitaker (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 213
In re Schmidt (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 331
In re Gibson (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 168
Harrold v. Collier
Abuse of Discretion
Blakemore V Blakemore
Social Workers
Miller V Gammie
Other
Rooker- Feldman & Yonger
Case Law Quotes
From the Supreme Court’s Parham v. J.R. decision, “The statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to American tradition.” 442 U.S. 584 at 603 (1979)
This Court has stated that the “purpose of an appeal bond is to secure the appellee’s right to collect on the judgment during the pendency of the appeal.” State ex rel. Geauga County Bd. of Comm’rs v. Milligan, 100 Ohio St.3d 366, 2003-Ohio-6608, 800 N.E.2d 361, ¶ 21.
“Since the facts in each case will vary, and the advisability of permitting an adoption must be made on a case-by-case basis, the trial court must be allowed broad discretion in making the determination.” In re Adoption of Charles B., 50 Ohio St.3d 88, 94, 552 N.E.2d 884 (1990).
While applying abuse-of-discretion review, appellate courts in adoption cases “may not substitute [their] judgment for that of the probate court when competent, credible evidence supports the probate court’s decision.” In re Adoption of M.R.P., 2022- Ohio-1631, ¶ 20 (12th Dist.); In re Adoption of K.M.T., 2019-Ohio-4988, ¶ 29 (5th Dist.).
With regard to the best-interest analysis, “[i]ssues of credibility are for the trial court to determine because the trial judge is in the best position to view the witnesses and to observe the demeanor, gestures and voice inflection during testimony.” In re Adoption of A.M.L., 2015-Ohio-2224, ¶ 11 (12th Dist.).
While a trial court may applaud a biological father’s efforts to improve his life and his desire to repair his role as a parent, it cannot ignore the statutory factors associated with a child’s best interest, as “the goal of adoption in Ohio ‘is to protect the best interest of the child.’ ” In re Adoption of J.G.S., 2023-Ohio-1155, ¶ 19 (1st Dist.), quoting In re Hitchcock, 120 Ohio App.3d 88, 104 (8th Dist. 1996), citing In re Adoption of Zschach, 75 Ohio St.3d 648 (1996). “[T]he statutory framework and case law both
elevate the best interest of the child over the rights of others in an adoption proceeding.”Id., citing Adoption of Ridenour at 322. The best interest of the child is of primary
concern, with “all other concerns of secondary importance.” (Emphasis in original.)
Pater v. Pater, 63 Ohio St.3d 393, 403 (1992). The focus of a best interest determination is the child, not the parent’s interests. In re R.G., 2016-Ohio-7897, ¶ 28 (8th Dist.).
In reaching its decision on the evaluation of the best interest of the child, the final step in considering a petition for adoption, the trial court considered all 11 enumerated statutory best interest factors and concluded, after a lengthy discussion of each factor, that “[t]hese eleven factors present a favorable review of the Petition.” The court went on, though, to consider one other “significant” factor in discerning the child’s best interest, and it concluded that, because Father had consistently sought visitation with and/or custody of the child and had “fought” the petition, “(t)he Court believes that [Father] deserves the opportunity to reestablish his relationship with his child. The Court believes that it is in the best interest of the child to have that relationship reestablished.” In focusing on what Father “deserved” rather than on the best interest of the child, the trial court strayed from its role and abused its discretion.
A best interest determination must focus on the child, not the parent. Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71, 75 (1988); In re Awkal, 95 Ohio App.3d 309, 315 (1994).
An adoption “does not contravene the best interests of the child simply because an even stronger set of family bonds might be desirable.” In re Matter of Taylor,
2002-Ohio-2755 (8th Dist.). Neither a biological relationship nor a positive familial relationship can be controlling in itself when determining the best interest of a child. See
In re J.B., 2013-Ohio-1704 (8th Dist.) ¶ 111. In other words, a child’s present best interest is not tied to one parent’s desire to forge a relationship in the future in the absence of a present relationship.