R.C. 3107.16(B), which bars attacks on adoptions more than a year after the decree, saves nothing, as that statute does not apply to void judgments. See, In re Adoption of Knipper15(1986), 30 Ohio App.3d 214. (The probate court could set aside an adoption decree four years after it was journalized where the petitioner did not use due diligence in trying to discover the natural parent's address); In re Adoption of Baby Girl E.162005-Ohio-3565, ¶28. ("If [the mother's] consent to the adoption is invalid for fraud, duress, or some other factor...and therefore ineffective to waive statutory notice of the adoption proceedings, application of R.C. 3107.16(B) is unconstitutional as applied to this case.")

That leaves adoptive parents vulnerable to disrupted adoptions, and the state, or other individuals, vulnerable to civil rights and other tort claims. In turn, the 30-day extension will increase the number of anonymous desertions; hence the odds of dissolved orders and disrupted placements.

The DCA is also preempted by the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA).17Pub. L. No. 105-89. 111 Stat. 2115 (Codified in scattered sections of 42 U.S.C. (Chap. 7), particularly §§ 629, 670, and 671. Under ASFA, states must consider a relative placement preference and seek reunification in child protection cases to receive federal adoption assistance.1842 U.S.C. § 671 (a)(15)(B) and (a)(19). The DCA wrongly circumvents ASFA by eliminating the need to attempt reunification and to inquire about relatives. Thus, even if the Supreme Court amends the juvenile rules, the DCA is vulnerable to that separate constitutional challenge.

The first crack in the safe haven law's armor has appeared. Don't worsen it. Reject S.B. 304.