The Akron Legal News

Adoption center applauds revisions, pushes for additional changes to bill

Frank LaRose

TIFFANY L. PARKS
Special to the Legal News
Published: August 28, 2014

While officials from the National Center for Adoption Law and Policy at Capital University Law School have thanked lawmakers for amending Senate Bill 250, the group is continuing to push for additional changes to the adoption-focused bill.

“This bill is of special interest to us, as NCALP works every day to improve the laws, policies and practices that govern child welfare, foster care and adoption systems through research, education and advocacy,” said Denise St. Clair, NCALP executive director. “Our focus is always on the best interests of the children and youth who are involved in these systems.”

SB 250, jointly sponsored by Sens. Shannon Jones, R-Springboro, and Frank LaRose, R-Copley, originally sought to require a birth mother who decides, during the pregnancy, to place the minor for adoption, or an attorney or other representative working on her behalf, to give written notice to each person she identifies as the putative father of the minor.

The measure has been revamped to permit an agency, attorney representing the person seeking to adopt the child, or an attorney representing the child’s mother, and with the mother’s written permission, to serve actual notice to a putative father of a child notifying the individual that the child’s mother is considering adoption.

In addition, the adjusted bill requires that actual notice be served to a putative father prior to the child’s birth. “Actual notice” means written correspondence that is actually received by the putative father and includes personal service or certified mail.

The amended proposal is similar to House Bill 307, sponsored by Rep. Jim Buchy, R-Greenville.

St. Clair applauded the incorporation of stakeholders’ suggestions into the revised measure.

“We were especially pleased with one of the most significant changes to this version — making the increased tax credit refundable for adoptive parents,” she said.

“Although we support many of the proposed changes to the law, we have identified some remaining issues of concern in relation to ... provisions on pre-birth notice to putative fathers.”

St. Clair said NCALP officials have questioned what problem the putative father provisions are intended to address and whether that problem is of a “magnitude to justify such a big change in the law.”

“We are reassured by the fact that parts of the bill that would present barriers to meaningful participation and decision-making by putative fathers have been removed,” she said.

“We commend the drafters for emphasizing the importance of early knowledge about potential fathers and the opportunity to gauge whether an adoptive placement will be opposed through the provision of a mechanism for pre-birth notice. Although changes to the bill’s original language have addressed most of the prior concerns about treatment of putative fathers, some remain.”

St. Clair agreed, in theory, that it could be beneficial to allow a putative father the opportunity to provisionally give or refuse to give pre-birth consent to an adoption.

However, she said, the remaining provisions related to pre-birth notice and consent “complicate” the current putative father registration and consent process.

“For example, (the bill’s provisions) couple the notice and consent requirement with a requirement for filing with the putative father registry within 30 days after the receipt of notice,” St. Clair said.

“A putative father who receives notice has 30 days in which to register and to provide provisional consent via the registration process and via a prescribed consent process.”

St. Clair said it does not appear that there are any consequences for failure to respond to the notice, other than losing the right to provide provisional consent.

“It is thus unclear what is intended by this section,” she said.

St. Clair went on to say the proposed process places additional burdens on parties, the court and the putative father registry.

“Courts will be required to keep track of documentation, including provisional consents and revocations of same, related to a potential adoption in which a petition has not, and may not, even be filed, since a mother who sends a notice is in no way obligated to actually place the child for adoption,” she said.

In addition, she said, legal fees associated with the time required for the additional process will fall on the adoptive parents, who are responsible for the birth mother’s legal fees. Putative fathers could be required to seek legal counsel in order to understand and comply with the notice.

“Because of these questions and the potential for confusion that could result from the proposed process, we urge the sponsors and the committee to consider limiting the bill to providing an opportunity for a birth mother and/or her representatives to provide notice of planned adoptive placements to putative fathers, along with information on the putative father registry,” she said.

With regard to a provision in SB 250 that would ban any person or government entity from advertising that a child is being offered for adoption, St. Clair said NCALP supports the section but is suggesting that a term “preferable” to “advertising” could be used such as “give public information about.”

The bill is before the Senate Civil Justice Committee.

[Back]