Opinion ID: 4409770
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Plain Language of R.C. 3107.07(A)

Text: {¶ 47} In answering the certified question, we must determine the meaning of the language used by the legislature in R.C. 3107.07(A). When considering the meaning of a statute, our “primary goal    is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature’s intent in enacting the statute.” State v. Lowe, 112 Ohio St.3d 507, 2007-Ohio-606, 861 N.E.2d 512, ¶ 9. We first consider the “plain meaning of the statutory language.” Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Akron, 109 Ohio St.3d 106, 2006-Ohio-954, 846 N.E.2d 478, ¶ 52. If that language is “unambiguous and definite,” we apply it “in a manner consistent with the plain meaning of the statutory language.” Lowe at ¶ 9. We do not look to the canons of statutory construction when the plain language of a statute provides the meaning. See Hartmann v. Duffey, 95 Ohio St.3d 456, 2002-Ohio-2486, 768 N.E.2d 1170, ¶ 8, citing Lake Hosp. Sys. v. Ohio Ins. Guar. Assn., 69 Ohio St.3d 521, 524, 634 N.E.2d 611 (1994). 18 January Term, 2019 {¶ 48} R.C. 3107.07(A) provides that a parent’s consent to an adoption is not required if “without justifiable cause” the parent has failed to provide for the “maintenance and support of the minor as required by law or judicial decree” during the relevant time period. (Emphasis added.) “The legislature’s use of the word ‘or,’ a disjunctive term, signifies the presence of alternatives.” In re Estate of Centorbi, 129 Ohio St.3d 78, 2011-Ohio-2267, 950 N.E.2d 505, ¶ 18, citing O’Toole v. Denihan, 118 Ohio St.3d 374, 2008-Ohio-2574, 889 N.E.2d 505, ¶ 5152, and Pizza v. Sunset Fireworks Co., Inc., 25 Ohio St.3d 1, 4-5, 494 N.E.2d 1115 (1986). {¶ 49} Thus, under the plain language of R.C. 3107.07(A), a parent’s consent to an adoption is not required if the parent either has failed to provide support for the minor as required by law or has failed to provide support for the minor as required by judicial decree. The parent’s failure to fulfill either of the two obligations identified in R.C. 3107.07(A) is sufficient for the court to move on to the next step of the analysis and examine whether the parent had “justifiable cause” for the failure. {¶ 50} To conclude, as the majority does, that the existence of a judicial decree that relieves a parent of an obligation to pay child support is dispositive of all maintenance-and-support obligations relevant to R.C. 3107.07(A), we would need to rewrite the statute to provide that a parent’s consent to an adoption is not required if, without justifiable cause, the parent has failed to provide support for the minor “as required by judicial decree, or if there is no judicial decree, as required by law.” The majority’s rewritten version of the statute may or may not be wise; indeed, the legislature may do well to enact the majority’s rewritten version. Nonetheless, when a statute’s meaning is clear and unambiguous, no construction is necessary and courts will not add or delete words from that statute to change its effect so that it provides increased protections of parental rights. See 19 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Armstrong v. John R. Jurgensen Co., 136 Ohio St.3d 58, 2013-Ohio-2237, 990 N.E.2d 568, ¶ 12.