Court Opinion

ID: 9801873
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 08:56:11.657536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:57:08.354935
License: Public Domain

Lanzinger, J.,
dissenting.
{¶ 30} I respectfully dissent based on my dissent in In re Adoption of P.A.C., 126 Ohio St.3d 236, 2010-Ohio-3351, 933 N.E.2d 236.
{¶ 31} Although Wyrembek filed a parentage action to determine whether he had a parent-child relationship with G.V., that action had not concluded when the adoption petition was filed. Therefore, under the plain language of R.C. 3107.01(H), Wyrembek remains within the definition of “putative father,” and R.C. 3107.07(A) does not apply. Because Wyrembek had timely registered as a putative father, the trial court should have held a hearing to determine whether his consent is not required under R.C. 3107.07(B)(2).
{¶ 32} For the foregoing reasons, I would reverse the judgment of the Sixth District Court of Appeals and remand the case to the probate court for further proceedings.