Legal Opinion

In re Adoption of Walters

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 17, 2007No. Nos. 2006-0613 and 2006-0614PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtO’Connor, J.

{¶ 1} Today this court is called upon to determine whether the required notice of a hearing on an adoption proceeding under R.C. 3107.11 must include specific reference to both the consent and best-interests portions of that hearing to be sufficient under the Due Process Clause of the Ohio and United States Constitutions. We hold that neither the statute nor a biological parent’s fundamental interest in the custody and care of his or her child requires notice of the two separate purposes of the adoption hearing in order for the adoption to be valid, and for that reason, we affirm the judgment…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Troxel v. GranvilleSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Armstrong v. ManzoSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  3. In re MurrayOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  4. In re HayesOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Rice v. CertainTeed Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1999

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. In re ThompkinsOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  2. In re ThompkinsOhio Supreme Court · 2007

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

Powered by the Exa API