Ohio Court Case: In re Dickhaus

IN RE DICKHAUS 

No. 2-69 

State of Ohio, Court of Common Pleas, Clermont County, Probate Division 

41 Ohio Misc. 1; 321 N.E.2d 800; 70 Ohio Op. 2d 24 

February 22, 1974, Decided 

Judgment accordingly. 

SYLLABUS: 1. Relatives have no preferential legal right to adopt. 

2. The existence of suitably qualified relatives desirous to adopt is but one factor, and not necessarily the controlling factor, in determining what is in the best interests of the child. 

3. Where the social services agency has no substantial reasons for withholding the answer and consent required by R. C. 3107.06, the court will order the answer and consent filed when the court determines it is in the best interest of the child to order the adoption. 

4. Where substantial reasons exist for withholding the answer and consent required by R. C. 3107.06, and the court is satisfied that it is not in the best interest of the child to require it, the adoption will be denied. 

COUNSEL: Mr. Allen Burreson, for petitioners. 

Mr. Delbert H. Lay, for Social Services. 

JUDGES: DAVIS, J. (of Highland County sitting by assignment). 

OPINIONBY: DAVIS 

OPINION: This cause came on to be heard on the petition of an uncle and aunt to adopt their three nephews: Phillip, age 3 years; Paul, age 4 years; and Richard, age 6 years. The children were placed in the permanent custody of the Social Services Division of the Clermont County Welfare Department (Social Services) by order of the Juvenile Court Division of Clermont County Court of Common Pleas. Social Services has withheld filing an answer and consent. Paul and Richard were placed in the temporary care of the petitioners by the said social services agency, and Phillip was placed in a pre-adoptive home. Some fourteen months has elapsed since these placements. Attachments have developed naturally between the children and their custodians in their respective homes. 

Petitioners claim they are suitably qualified to care for and rear the children; that it is in the best interest of the children that all three children be adopted by them and because they are relatives, they have a preferential legal right to said childrn. 

Social Services, although questioning the suitability of petitioners home for an original placement for adoption acknowledge that the fourteen months that Paul and Richard have been in the home during this litigation that certain attachments have been established between the children and petitioners which might now be against the best interests of the children to remove them. Likewise, it is strongly urged that similar attachments have developed between Phillip and his pre-adoptive parents which would now be against his best interest to remove him. 
Social Services moved to dismiss the petition for adoption charging lack of jurisdiction because the agency has not filed with the court a written consent to the adoption as required by R. C. 3107.06. 

"The refusal of an agency to consent to an adoption does not deprive the Probate Court of jurisdiction * * *." In re Haun (1972), 31 Ohio App. 2d 63.