Opinion
No. 78-1417
Decided May 2, 1979.
Habeas corpus — Writ denied, when — Abandoned child — Natural parent seeking custody.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Licking County.
This is an appeal as of right from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus by the Court of Appeals.
Complainants, David and Linda Hughes, are the natural parents of a child, Dawnanna, born January 6, 1968, when Linda Hughes was age 17, unmarried and living with her parents, respondents herein. The child has continued from birth to reside with her grandparents.
David and Linda Hughes were married in November 1968, and David has acknowledged being the father of the child. Subsequent to the filing of this action in habeas corpus seeking custody of the child, the complainants separated and Linda made no appearance or offered any testimony at the hearing held in the Court of Appeals. David Hughes is the sole appellant.
At the hearing, evidence in support of the complaint related to the ability of David Hughes, who lives with his 74-year-old mother, to adequately care for the child. Evidence on behalf of the respondents included testimony that the child is attending school, enjoys good health, and has always been provided adequately with food, clothing, shelter and personal care by the grandparents.
A court-appointed guardian ad litem reported that the best interests of the child would be served by the child remaining with the respondents.
Mr. Kenneth B. Schumaker, for appellant.
Mr. R. Stewart Beck, for appellees.
Appellant predicates his claim of wrongful detention of the child by the maternal grandparents on his being the natural parent and on the basis that he has not been shown or found to be unfit.
The evidence presented at the hearing before the Court of Appeals reveals that appellant abandoned the child. During the nine years from the child's birth until the filing of this action, appellant literally did nothing for her. He assumed no responsibility for health care, contributed nothing to her education and training, and placed upon respondents every duty and responsibility of parents. A parent may be denied custody if a preponderance of the evidence indicates that he has abandoned the child. In re Perales (1977), 52 Ohio St.2d 89. Thus, appellant has forfeited his paramount right to the custody of the child.
It is apparent from this record that the child's interest will be best served by continuing to be in the custody and care of the grandparents. See In re Young (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 90. Natural paternity alone under these circumstances is insufficient to support an action in habeas corpus. See In re Tilton (1954), 161 Ohio St. 571.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals denying habeas corpus relief is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., HERBERT, W. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER and HOLMES, JJ., concur.
P. BROWN, J., concurs in the judgment.