A father’s attempt to prevent a couple from adopting his newborn the baby failed because the father waited too long to file his objection.

A father’s attempt to prevent a couple from adopting his newborn the baby failed because the father waited too long to file his objection.

Attempts by the father of a newborn baby to prevent a couple from adopting the baby failed because the father waited too long after the adoption petition was filed to act, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

The Supreme Court ruled that men not married to the child’s birth mother who are claiming to be fathers of children must follow the procedures in the putative father registry law or relinquish their rights to object to an adoption. Establishing paternity after an adoption petition has been filed, but before a hearing on the petition, does not restore the rights of a father who did not register as a putative father, the Court added.

The Court reversed the Third District Court of Appeals, which ruled that the Van Wert County Probate Court should consider the father’s right to contest the adoption because he earned a “second status” as the biological father before the adoption petition hearing.

Writing for the Court majority, Justice Jennifer Brunner explained the Ohio adoption law reflects the legislature's “careful balancing of rights” to further the best interests of children. The law requires adoptions to proceed expeditiously to provide a stable family environment for children, while providing consent requirements to protect the rights of natural parents. The father in this case was required to follow the procedures found in state law; his failure to do so allowed the adoption to move forward without his consent, the Court concluded.

Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor and Justices Sharon L. Kennedy, R. Patrick DeWine, Michael P. Donnelly and Melody Stewart joined Justice Brunner’s opinion. Justice Patrick F. Fischer concurred in judgment only.

Registration Procedures Not Followed
Ohio lawmakers established a putative father registry in 1996 in R.C. 3107.061 et seq. Under this law a father’s consent to the adoption of a minor child is not required unless the father registers with the putative father registry no later than 15 days after the child is born. The father can also lose the right to consent for other reasons.

In 2020, a 17-year-old Van Wert girl identified in court records as “J.D.” became pregnant by 18-year-old “K.W.” J.D. planned for the adoption of the child, “H.P.,” by a married couple who she knew. Three days after the birth of H.P., the married couple filed a petition in the Van Wert County probate court to adopt the child, and J.D. completed all the necessary documents to consent to the adoption.

At the time, the couple notified the court that the consent of H.P.’s biological father was not needed, but stated that he still had time to come forward. Seventeen days after the birth, K.W. filed an action in neighboring Logan County Juvenile Court seeking genetic testing to prove he was H.P.’s biological father and to gain custody of the child.

K.W. then filed an objection to the adoption in the Van Wert County probate court.  The couple asked the probate court to reject K.W.’s objection, arguing they did not need his consent because he did not timely register as a putative father.

In March 2021, the probate court determined the adoption could proceed without K.W.’s consent. It ruled that his failure to register with 15 days after the birth of H.P. caused him to lose his right to consent. K.W. appealed to the Third District. The Third District agreed that K.W. lost his rights as a putative father. But the Third District reasoned that he gained rights as the biological father before the adoption was finalized. The Third District remanded the case to the probate court to determine if K.W. could pursue his rights as the biological father.

The couple and the child’s mother appealed the Third District’s decision to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.

In today’s opinion, the Court determined that the law is clear on what steps a putative father must take to preserve his right to object to an adoption and that K.W.’s failure to timely register cost him his right to consent.

The Court also noted that in prior decisions, it allowed a biological father to consent, but only if he was declared the father before the adoption petition was filed, as the adoption laws specify. K.W.’s efforts to have himself declared the biological father after the adoption petition was filed did not confer a right to consent, the Court concluded.

Case Returned to Appeals Court
When ruling in K.W.’s favor, the Third District addressed only two of four legal arguments he raised. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Third District to consider K.W.’s other two legal arguments regarding any other rights he claimed to contest the adoption.

2022-0159. In re Adoption of H.P., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4369.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.

PDF files may be viewed, printed, and searched using the free Acrobat^® Reader
Acrobat Reader is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.