Legal Opinion

In re Adoption of Holcomb

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 7, 1985No. Nos. 84-1345 and 84-1755PublishedCited by 319 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.

Today we are asked to evaluate R.C. 3107.07(A) in order to determine the legislature’s intended meaning of the terms “communicate” and “without justifiable cause.” Until now, this court has not taken the opportunity to appraise this statutory provision to establish when parental consent to adoption is or is not required under such facts as are presented herein. However, a number of appellate courts have assessed this provision in situations apposite to the case at bar. See In re Adoption of Anthony (1982), 5 Ohio App. 3d 60; In re Adoption of Salisbury (1982), 5 Ohio App. 3d 65; In re…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Santosky v. KramerSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. In re Adoption of SchoeppnerOhio Supreme Court · 1976
  3. In re Adoption of McDermittOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  4. In Re Adoption of HuppOhio Court of Appeals · 1982
  5. In Re Adoption of SalisburyOhio Court of Appeals · 1982

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by319 opinions

  1. State v. SchiebelOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  2. In re Adoption of GibsonOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  3. In re Adoption of MasaOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  4. In re R.M.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2013
  5. In Re HestonOhio Court of Appeals · 1998

314 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API