Eighth District Explains the Proper Burden-Shifting Framework in Adoption Consent Cases

Hilton Parker LLC recently secured a significant appellate victory that helps clarify the analytical framework for determining whether a parent’s consent is required in adoption cases where the biological parent has failed to provide financial or other support for the child. Geoffrey Parker, representing the prospective adoptive parent, successfully argued the case before Ohio’s Eighth District Court of Appeals. Erin Groves (pictured), a law student intern, wrote the initial draft of the brief under supervision from Jonathan Hilton.

The starting point in adoption cases is the consent of the biological parent. Under Ohio law, a parent’s consent is generally required before their child can be adopted. However, R.C. 3107.07(A) provides an important exception: consent is not required when a parent has failed without justifiable cause to either (1) provide more than de minimis contact with the minor or (2) provide for the maintenance and support of the minor as required by law or judicial decree for a period of at least one year immediately preceding the filing of the adoption petition.

The burden is on the petitioner (the person seeking to adopt) to prove by clear and convincing evidence both the failure to support/contact AND that this failure was without justifiable cause. This one-year lookback period is often called the “statutory period.” Even if the court finds that parental consent isn’t required, that’s just the first step – the court must still determine whether the adoption is in the best interest of the child before granting an adoption petition.

In affirming the probate court’s decision and ruling for our firm’s client, the Eighth District Court of Appeals adopted the burden-shifting framework previously articulated by the Ninth District in In re Adoption of A.H., 2013-Ohio-1600 (9th Dist.). Under this framework, once the petitioner proves by clear and convincing evidence that the parent failed to provide support during the statutory period, the burden of production shifts to the parent to demonstrate “some facially justifiable cause” for the failure.

To meet this burden, the biological parent must produce concrete evidence of their “entire financial situation,” including specific information about income and other financial obligations. The case illustrates this principle clearly: despite claims that COVID-19 had reduced the parent’s income, the court found that generalized testimony about reduced commissions, without supporting documentation such as tax returns or specific income figures, was insufficient to meet the burden. Importantly, vague or generalized testimony about financial hardship is insufficient. The parent must present actual evidence of their income and expenses during the relevant period.

Only if the parent meets this initial burden does the ultimate burden shift back to the petitioner to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parent’s failure to support was without justifiable cause.

This framework, as advocated by Hilton Parker LLC, provides much-needed clarity for practitioners and courts analyzing consent issues under R.C. 3107.07(A). It ensures that parents claiming justified non-support must come forward with specific evidence rather than relying on general assertions of hardship, while still preserving appropriate protections for parents’ fundamental rights.

We wish to congratulate law student intern Erin Groves on her work on this case that helped bring about this important clarification in the law. Practitioners representing biological parents in adoption proceedings will now know that, if they wish to claim a substantial justification for lack of support, they must introduce tax returns or other documents providing the probate court with an overview of the biological parents’ finances.

Disclaimer: Nothing in this post forms an attorney-client relationship or is intended to give you legal advice for your specific situation.