Case Title: In re Adoption of J.A.S.

Citation: 2010-Ohio-3270

Docket Number: 20091695 and 20091980

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2010-07-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as In 
re Adoption of J.A.S., Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-3270.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2010-OHIO-3270 
IN RE ADOPTION OF J.A.S. ET AL.; R.S. ET AL., APPELLANTS;  
J.W. ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as In re Adoption of J.A.S., Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-3270.] 
Adoption — R.C. 5103.16(D) — Preadoption placement procedures apply even 
though prospective adoptive parents have legal custody. 
(Nos. 2009-1695 and 2009-1980 — Submitted April 21, 2010 — Decided  
July 15, 2010.) 
APPEAL from and CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Lorain County, 
Nos. 08CA9518 and 08CA9519, 2009-Ohio-3927. 
__________________ 
SYLLABUS OF THE COURT 
The procedures in R.C. 5103.16(D) for placing a child for purposes of adoption 
with a prospective adoptive parent apply even when the child has been 
living with the prospective adoptive parents pursuant to an award of legal 
custody by order of the juvenile court. 
__________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J. 
{¶ 1} We must resolve a conflict of law certified to us by the Ninth 
District Court of Appeals on the following question:  “Does R.C. 5103.16(D) 
require pre-adoptive placement where the prospective adoptive parents have been 
awarded legal custody of the child pursuant to a final dispositional order out of 
the juvenile court, and the child has been living with the prospective adoptive 
parents since the award of legal custody?” 
{¶ 2} For the reasons that follow, we answer the question in the 
affirmative.  There is no exception in R.C. 5103.16(D) for adoption by legal 
custodians.  Thus, we hold that the procedures in R.C. 5103.16(D) for placing a 
child for purposes of adoption with a prospective adoptive parent apply even 
when the child has been living with the prospective adoptive parents pursuant to 
an award of legal custody by order of the juvenile court. 
{¶ 3} In January 2006, the Lorain County Juvenile Court adjudicated 
J.A.S. and J.N.S., minor children, neglected and dependent.  Ten months later, the 
court determined that the mother had failed to complete the case plan for 
reunification and that she was unable to provide stability for her children.  The 
court granted legal custody of the children to the appellants, R.S. and S.E.S., and 
ordered monthly visits between the children and their mother, who retained 
residual parental rights. 
{¶ 4} Two years later, appellants filed a petition in the Lorain County 
Probate Court to adopt the children.  They alleged that the children’s biological 
parents had failed to communicate with or support the children for one year 
immediately preceding the filing of the adoption petition, and that their consent to 
the adoption was therefore not required.  The appellants also moved to dispense 
with the preadoption placement requirements of R.C. 5103.16(D).  They alleged 
that the procedures were not necessary in this case, because the Lorain County 
Juvenile Court had placed the children in their home by order of legal custody and 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
the children had been living with them.  The probate court summarily denied the 
motion to dispense with the placement. 
{¶ 5} The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the probate court’s 
denial of appellants’ motion to dispense with preadoption placement procedures.  
The appellate court concluded that R.C. 5103.16(D) makes no exception for legal 
custodians.  The Second District Court of Appeals had reached the opposite 
conclusion in the conflict case, In re Adoption of A.W.K., Montgomery App. No. 
22248, 2007-Ohio-6341.  There, the court concluded that “a placement for 
adoption [under R.C. 5103.16(D)] need not precede an adoption petition where * 
* * the child is already living in the prospective adoptive parents’ home pursuant 
to a grant of legal custody.”  ¶ 19.  The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed.  
The appellate court also certified that its judgment was in conflict with the 
judgment of the Second District Court of Appeals in In re Adoption of A.W.K. 
{¶ 6} We determined that a conflict exists, and we accepted appellants’ 
discretionary appeal on the same issue.  The cases have been consolidated.  123 
Ohio St.3d 1492, 2009-Ohio-6015, 916 N.E.2d 1073, and 123 Ohio St.3d 1494, 
2009-Ohio-6015, 916 N.E.2d 1074. 
{¶ 7} R.C. 5103.16 sets forth the procedure for independently placing a 
child for adoption when no public agency, certified institution or association, or 
foreign custodian is involved.  R.C. 5103.16(D) states: 
{¶ 8} “(D) No child shall be placed or received for adoption or with 
intent to adopt unless placement is made by a public children services agency, an 
institution or association that is certified by the department of job and family 
services under section 5103.03 of the Revised Code to place children for 
adoption, or custodians in another state or foreign country, or unless all of the 
following criteria are met: 
{¶ 9} “(1) Prior to the placement and receiving of the child, the parent or 
parents of the child personally have applied to, and appeared before, the probate 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
court of the county in which the parent or parents reside, or in which the person 
seeking to adopt the child resides, for approval of the proposed placement 
specified in the application and have signed and filed with the court a written 
statement showing that the parent or parents are aware of their right to contest the 
decree of adoption subject to the limitations of section 3107.16 of the Revised 
Code; 
{¶ 10} “(2) The court ordered an independent home study of the proposed 
placement to be conducted as provided in section 3107.031 of the Revised Code, 
and after completion of the home study, the court determined that the proposed 
placement is in the best interest of the child; 
{¶ 11} “(3) The court has approved of record the proposed placement.” 
{¶ 12} Appellants contend that R.C. 5103.16(D) does not apply in this 
case.  They urge us to adopt the reasoning in A.W.K. and dispense with 
preadoption placement because there was judicial oversight when the juvenile 
court placed the children in their legal custody.  We must determine whether R.C. 
5103.16(D) preplacement requirements are necessary even when the child has 
been living with the prospective adoptive parents pursuant to a grant of legal 
custody. 
{¶ 13} R.C. 5103.16 was enacted to curb black-market adoptions by 
requiring some agency supervision or court approval of private placements.  In re 
Adoption of Zschach (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 648, 656, 665 N.E.2d 1070 (plurality 
opinion).  The General Assembly wanted to prevent private independent 
placements that may involve fraud, misrepresentations, or the exchange of money 
to coerce parents to relinquish a baby.  “The intent of the legislature in enacting 
R.C. 5103.16 was to provide some measure of judicial control over the placement 
of children for adoption which is not conducted under the auspices of a statutorily 
recognized and authorized agency.  That measure of judicial control is 
accomplished by having the parents of the child personally appear before the 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
proper probate court for approval of the placement and adoption.”  Lemley v. 
Kaiser (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 258, 260, 6 OBR 324, 452 N.E.2d 1304. 
{¶ 14} R.C. 5103.16 does not apply in all private adoptions.  The General 
Assembly has expressly excluded adoptions by a stepparent, a grandparent, or a 
guardian.  Stepparents and grandparents have a family or biological connection to 
the birth parents, and a guardian is subject to ongoing court supervision and may 
exercise rights over a child only pursuant to a court order.  R.C. 2151.011(B)(16); 
R.C. Chapter 2111.  Thus, a private placement with any of those persons imposes 
less need for protection. 
{¶ 15} R.C. 5103.16(D) makes no exception for a legal custodian.  A legal 
custodian has more independent discretion over the child, and there is no ongoing 
judicial supervision or oversight.  The biological parents’ residual rights have not 
been terminated.  The General Assembly when amending R.C. 5103.16(D) did 
not exclude a legal custodian from the statute’s application, and we will not 
judicially add such an exception to the statute. 
{¶ 16} Appellants argue that it is unnecessary to apply R.C. 5103.16(D) 
because there was judicial oversight here.  The Lorain County Children’s Services 
was involved in the dependency action, and the juvenile court placed the children 
with the appellants when it awarded them legal custody. 
{¶ 17} There is a significant difference between a court’s placement 
pursuant to an award of legal custody and a court’s approval over the placement 
of a child in a prospective adoptive home.  Here, the juvenile court’s order that 
awarded legal custody of the children was in a child-dependency action.  The 
county had intervened and removed the children from the home but had not 
pursued termination of parental rights.  During the disposition hearing, the 
juvenile court advised the parties of their rights.  The biological parents retained 
“residual parental rights, privileges, and responsibilities,” which included 
reasonable visitation and the right to deny consent to adoption.  R.C. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
2151.011(B)(46).  Appellants were awarded the right to physically care for and 
control the children, subject to the parents’ residual rights and responsibilities.  
R.C. 2151.011(B)(19). 
{¶ 18} R.C. 5103.16(D), on the other hand, requires judicial control over 
the child’s placement for purposes of adoption.  With a private, independent 
adoption, this means that the biological parents must appear before and obtain 
approval from the probate court.  See Lemley, 6 Ohio St.3d at 260, 6 OBR 324, 
452 N.E.2d 1304;  In re Proposed Adoption of a Child by Michael S. (1998), 131 
Ohio App.3d 358, 722 N.E.2d 574.  Although J.A.S. and J.N.S. had been living 
with the appellants under an order of legal custody, the probate court had not 
formally placed the children with them for purposes of adoption.  The juvenile 
court’s order of legal custody is not a placement for adoption under R.C. 
5103.16(D).  No court has approved placement for purposes of adoption. 
{¶ 19} Appellants also contend that the placement was not surreptitious, 
because it was part of the dependency action, and that biological parents are 
notified of the adoption process because their consent is necessary unless a 
statutory exception applies.  R.C. 3107.05, 3107.06, and 3107.07.  However, the 
dependency action did not sever the rights of the biological parents.  The parents 
retained residual parental rights and may attempt to correct the situation that 
caused the court to remove the child in order to regain custody.  Termination of 
parental rights and subsequent adoption were not issues in the juvenile court. 
{¶ 20} A.W.K. minimized concern for the lack of notice to the biological 
parents when R.C. 5103.16(D) procedures are not followed.  2007-Ohio-6341, ¶ 
16.  The court in that case reasoned that the consent phase of the adoption process 
would afford the biological parents sufficient notice.  Id.  However, if prospective 
adoptive parents bypass the preadoption placement procedures in R.C. 
5103.16(D), biological parents may be unaware that adoption is being pursued.  In 
cases where the biological parents’ consent is unnecessary, the parents may have 
January Term, 2010 
7 
 
no knowledge of the potential loss of their parental rights and the impending 
adoption until the court schedules a hearing on the lack of consent and 
termination of parental rights.  R.C. 5103.16(D) ensures that the biological 
parents have notice of a prospective adoption placement when a public agency or 
other certified institution or association is not involved. 
{¶ 21} Finally, appellants claim that R.C. 5103.16(D) procedures would 
require them to relinquish legal custody and the children to be physically removed 
from their home, so that the court may place the children with the prospective 
adoptive parents for adoption.  However, placement under R.C. 5103.16(D) may 
be accomplished without physical movement of the children.  Although the statute 
requires the biological parents to seek court approval of placement, this does not 
mean that the children must physically be with the biological parents in order for 
them to file.  The purpose of the statute is to provide some judicial control over 
the placement for adoption; it does not require removing the children from their 
legal custodians just so they can be placed back in that home for a different 
purpose.  As a practical matter, if the biological parents are not involved or object 
to the placement, then the legal custodians must pursue termination of the parental 
rights in order to proceed with the adoption. 
{¶ 22} We must strictly comply with the statutory requirements in R.C. 
5103.16(D).  Lemley, 6 Ohio St.3d at 260, 6 OBR 324, 452 N.E.2d 1304.  
Therefore, the procedures in R.C. 5103.16(D) for placing a child for purposes of 
adoption with a prospective adoptive parent apply even when the child has been 
living with the prospective adoptive parents pursuant to an award of legal custody 
by order of the juvenile court.  We answer yes to the certified question and affirm 
the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
PFEIFER, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
BROWN, C.J., not participating. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
__________________ 
 
Rothgery & Associates and Joel D. Fritz, for appellants. 
 
Elizabeth I. Cooke, for appellee J.W. 
 
Flanagan, Lieberman, Hoffman & Swaim and Richard Hempfling, urging 
reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Adoption Law Roundtable. 
 
Voorhees & Levy, L.L.D., and Michael R. Voorhees, urging reversal for 
amicus curiae American Academy of Adoption Attorneys. 
______________________