A stepmother appealing a lower court’s decision that required her to obtain consent from the biological mother for an adoption has lost her case in the Twelfth Appellate District of Ohio. The appellate court affirmed the ruling of the Fayette County Probate Court, concluding that the biological mother, Kendi Jordan, had “justifiable cause” for the period she lacked contact with her child, K.C.K.
This case revolves around the strict requirements in Ohio law for terminating a natural parent’s fundamental right to their child. Generally, adoption cannot proceed unless the biological parent consents, unless the petitioner (in this case, the stepmother, Tracy Knisley) can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parent failed, without justifiable cause, to maintain contact or provide support for at least one year before the adoption petition was filed.
The Dispute Over Contact and Support
K.C.K. was born in 2013 to Kendi Jordan (the biological Mother) and John Knisley (the Father). The parents were never married. The Stepmother married the Father in 2018.
The case history shows significant involvement from child welfare services following the birth of Mother’s third child, which led to the Highland County Juvenile Court awarding custody of K.C.K. to the Father in late 2018, while granting Mother visitation rights.
The Stepmother filed her petition for adoption in November 2023. She argued that Mother’s consent was unnecessary because Mother had failed to maintain “more than de minimis contact” and had not provided support for the year leading up to the petition.
At the hearing, testimony revealed that Mother had supervised visitation until September 2021, after which the parties informally agreed to unsupervised visits mirroring standard parenting time. This arrangement ended abruptly on June 24, 2022, when the Father and Stepmother informed Mother she could no longer see K.C.K. due to concerns about her mental health.
Mother testified that she was hospitalized multiple times in August and September 2022 for mental health issues, including psychosis. She explained that she did not aggressively pursue contact during this time because she was unwell and believed it was in the child’s best interest to stop visiting temporarily.
In December 2022, Mother sent a Christmas card and made several attempts via text message to contact the Father regarding K.C.K., all of which went unanswered. She stated her condition improved in the spring of 2023, prompting her to file a motion in the Highland Juvenile Court to reestablish parenting time before the Stepmother filed the adoption petition.
The Probate Court noted that while Mother was close to failing the statutory contact requirement, her decision to pursue legal avenues to reinstate visitation constituted “justifiable cause” for the lapse in contact during that period. Furthermore, the court questioned the communications between the parties, suggesting the Father and his attorney may have misled Mother, thereby delaying her efforts to reconnect.
The appellate court also observed that the Probate Court found Mother had provided more than de minimis financial support, as she had made consistent payments despite being in arrears at times.
Appellate Review: Justifiable Cause and Timing
The Stepmother raised two main arguments on appeal, both of which the Twelfth Appellate District rejected.
The first assignment of error challenged the finding of “justifiable cause.” The Stepmother argued that Mother’s filing of a motion in Juvenile Court was insufficient to excuse over a year of non-contact, asserting that Mother should have done more than file a bare, pro se motion.
The appellate court disagreed, emphasizing that the Probate Court did not rely *only* on the motion. It considered Mother’s testimony about sending the Christmas card, her attempts to text the Father, and critically, the context of the deteriorating relationship and the Father’s subsequent actions. The court found that Mother’s reliance on the legal process to resolve the blocked visitation was reasonable under the circumstances.
Under Ohio law, once the petitioner establishes a lack of contact, the burden shifts to the parent to show justifiable cause, though the ultimate burden of proof remains with the petitioner. The appellate court reviewed this finding under the “manifest weight of the evidence” standard, giving deference to the Probate Court, which was best positioned to assess witness credibility. They found no reason to overturn that determination.
The second assignment of error claimed the Probate Court improperly considered evidence that occurred *after* the adoption petition was filed, specifically the contempt ruling against the Father in the Juvenile Court proceedings. The Stepmother insisted that the review must strictly focus on the one-year period immediately before filing.
The appellate court found this argument unpersuasive. Citing precedent, the court confirmed that while the statutory period is the focus, courts are not confined to it. Evidence occurring before or after that period can provide necessary context. In this instance, the post-petition evidence—specifically the Juvenile Court’s finding that the Father had taken steps to “slow-walk” Mother’s visitation—directly supported the Probate Court’s finding that the Father may have misled Mother, thus explaining her lack of contact during the statutory period.
In conclusion, the Twelfth Appellate District affirmed the judgment of the Fayette Probate Court, meaning the Stepmother must still secure the consent of the biological Mother before she can finalize the adoption of K.C.K.