Changes in Adoption Laws

House Bill 7 provides additional financial support to the birth mother consenting to the adoption of her child. In addition to the payments of allowable expenses related to the adoption or placement of a child such as medical or legal expenses, prospective adoptive parents may now pay up to $3,000 of the living expenses incurred by the birth mother for the duration of her pregnancy and for 60 days after the child is born. The payment of these living expenses must flow through the attorney or agency arranging the adoption, but will ultimately provide much needed financial support for birth mother.

The bill also contains a requirement that the Director of Job and Family Services must promulgate rules that will ensure that adoption and foster care home study procedures and content are in alignment. This will help promote efficiency and consistency for the adoption and foster care systems, which should help make the adoption process go more smoothly.

The length of time in which a child must live with a foster parent before the foster parent may submit an adoption application has been decreased from 12 months to 6 months. Also, a juvenile court no longer needs to consent to adoptions before a probate court can grant adoption petitions that include legal guardians or custodians. As a result of these changes, children will have the opportunity to be adopted at a much faster rate and the number of children awaiting permanent homes will likely decrease.

Where a parent has not been in contact with the child for one year and failed to provide for the child, consent by the parent is no longer forfeited; rather, under the new law, the court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the parent did not try to establish contact with the child or provide any support. In addition, the clerk of courts must send a notice to the parent stating the legal ramifications of the adoption and informing the parent of his or her right to contest the child’s adoption. While the use of the “clear and convincing” standard as opposed to the automatic forfeiture of rights may be seen as a means to impede rather than expedite the adoption process, its usage will provide the birth parent(s) with the ability to contest the adoption before their parental rights are terminated and in doing so may reduce the possibility of lengthy appeals.

Another change provides for the finalization of an interlocutory order not less than six months and not over one year from the date the adoptee is placed in the adoptive home instead of anywhere between six months and one year from the date the order is issued. This provision will decrease the time the court has available for observation, investigation, and review of home study reports while also decreasing the amount of time that the adoptive parents must wait before the adoption is final. Current law which allows the court to vacate an interlocutory order sooner for good cause relating to adoptions involving foster parents or relatives remains unchanged in the bill.

A juvenile court must now consider the ability of the adoptive parents to meet the needs of the other children living in their home.

The bill also adopts a new definition of “non-identifying information” by listing types of information that may be requested in relation to the adoptive parent. Prior to the passage of House Bill 7, Ohio law only addressed the type of information considered as “non-identifying” as that which pertained to the birth parent. Under the bill, the adoptive parent’s age at the time of adoption, an adoptive sibling’s age at the time of adoption, the heritage, ethnic background, religion, educational level, and occupation of the adoptive parent, and general information known about the well-being of the adoptee both prior and after adoption is considered to be information that does not identify the parties involved and therefore subject to inquiry. The bill does authorize an agency, attorney, person, or other governmental authority to reclassify any non-identifying information related to an adoptive family as identifying information on a case-by-case basis and to deny the request made for that information. In addition, House Bill 7 preserves the ability of a birth parent of an adopted person, a birth sibling over 18 years, or a birth family member of a deceased birth parent to submit a written request for non-identifying information as well as retains the definition of what constitutes such information, but stipulates that the birth parent must wait until the adopted child is 18 years of age before the information can be requested.

Changes in Child Welfare Laws

Under House Bill 7, a juvenile court may extend a temporary custody order for an additional time beyond that by which a PCSA or a PCPA may extend a temporary custody order by motion. The bill permits a juvenile court to extend a temporary custody order in increments of six months each, but under no circumstance may it extend the order for more than one year. In addition, the bill prohibits the court from extending the temporary custody order beyond two years from either the date when the complaint was filed or when the child was put in shelter care, whichever comes first and irrespective of any previous extensions. This provision allows a juvenile court more latitude in its disposition of the child, while safeguarding against the placement of a child in temporary custody for an inordinate period of time.

The new law mandates that a juvenile court must, under specific circumstances, place a child in a PSCA’s or PCPA’s custody. The child is required to be placed with a PCSA or PCPA if all of the following apply: 1) the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be placed with one of the child’s parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent; 2) the child has been in an agency’s custody for two years or longer, and no longer qualifies for temporary custody; 3) the child does not meet the requirements for a planned permanent living arrangement pursuant to current law; and 4) prior to the dispositional hearing, no relative or other interested person has filed, or has been identified in, a motion for legal custody of the child.

The law provides specifications concerning when it is necessary for the child to stay in residential or institutional care. If the child is unable to function in a family-like setting due to physical or mental disability and must therefore remain in residential or institutional care, the law specifies that the child must remain in such care for “now and the foreseeable future” beyond the date of the child’s dispositional hearing.

Finally, the new law provides an additional standard for the involuntary termination of the parental rights of a parent who has already had his or her parental rights terminated in regards to a sibling of the child in question. Under House Bill 7, the parent must prove by clear and convincing evidence that in spite of the previous termination, the parent can provide a secure, permanent placement and adequate care for the health, welfare, and safety of the child. While this provision allows the parent the ability to preserve his parental rights for the child regardless of the loss of parental rights in respect to another child, it also protects the child who is the current subject of a TPR proceeding by requiring the parent to meet a stricter burden of proof.

The passage of House Bill 7 effectuates many positive changes in Ohio adoption laws and will encourage adoptions in Ohio of children in need of permanent homes. With approximately 2,800 children waiting for adoptive families out of the more than 22,000 children in Ohio living in either foster care or some type of out-of-home placement, it is necessary to make the adoption process more accessible.

For more information about Adoption or Contact Us.