## Facts

- W.J.H. (stepfather) sought to adopt his two stepchildren, K.A.C. and P.C.C., in the Franklin County Probate Court.
- The children’s biological parents, S.H. (mother) and P.C. (father), were married when the children were born.
- S.H. and P.C. later divorced under a shared-parenting plan that was incorporated into the divorce decree.
- The decree set child support at $0 (based on the parties’ finances) and did not require P.C. to pay support during the relevant period.
- After the divorce, P.C. moved to the United Kingdom.
- In 2011, S.H. married W.J.H.
- During the period leading up to the adoption petition, P.C. did not see the children in person and did not provide financial support.
- P.C. did make long-distance telephone calls totaling about 91 minutes (some unsuccessful attempts), at an international cost of about $174, and he sent cards and gifts to the children.
- In April 2013, W.J.H. filed adoption petitions alleging P.C.’s consent was not required under R.C. 3107.07(A) because P.C. allegedly failed, without justifiable cause, to provide more than de minimis contact and failed to provide maintenance and support for at least one year.
- P.C. filed a timely written objection to the adoptions.
- The probate court found that P.C.’s calls, cards, and gifts were more than de minimis contact and concluded P.C.’s consent was required; W.J.H. appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the probate court erred in concluding that P.C.’s telephone calls and mailed items constituted “more than de minimis contact” under R.C. 3107.07(A), such that his consent to adoption was required.
2. Whether the probate court erred in rejecting the claim that P.C. failed to provide “maintenance and support as required by law or judicial decree” under R.C. 3107.07(A) when the divorce decree imposed a $0 child-support obligation.
3. Whether R.C. 3107.07(K) required relief based on W.J.H.’s claim of unfair surprise or procedural unfairness at the adoption hearing.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals (Tenth District) affirmed the probate court’s judgment that P.C.’s consent to the adoptions was required.
- The court held there was competent, credible evidence supporting the finding that P.C.’s communications—international calls totaling about 91 minutes plus cards and gifts—were more than “token” contact and therefore not de minimis.
- The court also upheld the probate court’s conclusion that, because the divorce decree required no support payments, W.J.H. could not rely on a “failure to support as required by law or judicial decree” to excuse P.C.’s consent under R.C. 3107.07(A).
- The court rejected W.J.H.’s reliance on R.C. 3107.07(K), finding no basis for relief on this record, including no showing of prejudicial surprise that would justify disturbing the probate court’s decision.

## Legal Principles

- Under R.C. 3107.07(A), a parent’s consent to adoption may be dispensed with only if the petitioner proves by clear and convincing evidence that the parent, without justifiable cause, failed for at least one year to provide (1) more than de minimis contact, or (2) maintenance and support as required by law or judicial decree.
- Adoption statutes are strictly construed in favor of preserving the natural parent’s rights because adoption permanently terminates those rights.
- “De minimis contact” means token or trivial contact; modest but genuine efforts to communicate—such as documented phone calls and sending cards or gifts—can satisfy the “more than de minimis” standard.
- For the “maintenance and support” prong, the court looks to whether support was required “by law or judicial decree” during the measuring year; where a decree sets child support at $0, the petitioner cannot treat nonpayment as a statutory failure to provide required support.
- On appeal, the probate court’s fact-bound determinations on contact and consent are upheld when supported by competent, credible evidence.

## Conclusion

The Tenth District affirmed the denial of the stepparent’s attempt to proceed without the biological father’s consent because the father’s documented international calls, cards, and gifts were more than de minimis contact under R.C. 3107.07(A), and the existing divorce decree imposed no support obligation that could be used to excuse consent.


In re Adoption of K.A.H., 2015 Ohio 1971 (2015)