[Cite as In re Adoption of S.T.M, 2023-Ohio-38.]

COURT OF APPEALS

TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE MATTER OF

THE ADOPTION OF S.T.M.

JUDGES:

Hon. John W. Wise, P.J.

Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.

Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

Case No. 2022 AP 09 0028

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil Appeal from the Court of Common 

Pleas, Probate Division, Case No. 2022 

AD 03404

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: January 9, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Appellant Krystal Larrison For Appellees Ryan and Stacy McQuiston

LISA L. CALDWELL JAMES J. ONG

203 2nd Street NE 201 North Main Street

New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663 P. O. Box 272

Uhrichsville, Ohio 44683
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2022 AP 09 0028 2

Wise, P. J.

{¶1} Appellant-Mother Krystal Larrison appeals the decision of the Tuscarawas 

County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, which granted Appellees Ryan and 

Stacy McQuiston’s petition for adoption and change of name of S.T.M. 

{¶2} This appeal is expedited and is being considered pursuant to 

App.R.11.2(C).

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

{¶3} The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows:

{¶4} Krystal Larrison is the biological mother of minor child S.T.M. (d.o.b. 

11/14/2015). The child’s biological father is Ryan McQuiston, who has sole legal custody 

of S.T.M. 

{¶5} On September 22, 2017, Appellee Ryan McQuiston was awarded sole 

custody of S.T.M. through an action before the Guernsey County Juvenile Court before

the minor child turned the age of two, due in part to the drug issues of Appellant Krystal

Larrison. Appellant Krystal Larrison did not appear at the custody hearing and was not 

granted any companionship time with the minor child at the time sole custody was 

awarded to Appellee Ryan McQuiston. 

{¶6} To date, Appellant Krystal Larrison has not sought any type of 

companionship rights with the minor child through any court, including the Guernsey 

County Juvenile Court.

{¶7} Appellee Ryan McQuiston has permitted the parents of Appellant Krystal 

Larrison to have ongoing contact with the minor child, however, he advised them to not 

allow Appellant Krystal Larrison to have any contact with the minor child due to the order 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2022 AP 09 0028 3

of the Guernsey County Juvenile Court. Since the custody order through the Guernsey 

Juvenile Court, Appellant Krystal Larrison only had one limited contact with the minor 

child, approximately two years before the adoption petition filling, when she stopped at 

the residence of Appellee Ryan McQuiston to inquire about the minor child.

{¶8} On June 8, 2022, Appellee Ryan McQuiston and his wife Stacy McQuiston

filed a petition for adoption of S.T.M. in the Tuscarawas County Probate Court. Appellees

alleged in their petition that the consent of Appellant was not required for the adoption 

because Appellant had failed without justifiable cause to have more than de-minimis

contact with the child in the year leading up to the filing of the petition. 

{¶9} On August 25, 2022, the Tuscarawas County Probate Court held a hearing 

on that petition.

{¶10} The evidence at the hearing established that Appellee Stacy McQuiston is 

married to the child's father Appellee Ryan McQuiston, and there are two other children 

in the home. Both Appellees are employed. Appellees permit visitation between the child 

and the maternal grandparents, and a good relationship exists between them. (T. at 10-

11).

{¶11} Appellee Ryan McQuiston testified that Appellant Krystal Larrison had no 

contact with S.T.M. for at least one year prior to the filing of the adoption petition. (T. at 

11). He further testified that Appellant had only one brief interaction with the minor child 

about a year and a half to two years before the filing of the adoption petition. Id.

{¶12} Appellee Stacy McQuiston testified that she has been in S.T.M.’s life since 

day one, and that he calls her “Mom”. (T. at 44). She testified that S.T.M. lives with her, 

her husband Ryan, and her two other children Rylan and Gage. (T. at 43). She stated 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2022 AP 09 0028 4

that she helps him with his homework, attends his parent-teacher conferences, and when 

necessary, picks him up from school. (T. at 45). She stated that S.T.M. played baseball 

last year, currently plays flag football and is also a clover bud in 4-H. (T. at 46). She 

testified that she and/or Ryan take S.T.M. to his practices and attend 4-H with him. Id. 

She stated that she also helps him with any projects he has. Id. Mrs. McQuiston also 

testified that she currently carries all of the medical insurance for the family, and that she

handles S.T.M.’s doctor’s appointments. (T. at 46-47). She testified that Appellant is not 

involved in any of S.T.M.’s school activities, education, extra-curricular activities or 

medical care. (T. at 45-46). She further testified that Appellant has never provided any 

financial support for S.T.M. (T. at 47-48). Additionally, she testified that she was not aware 

of any contact between Appellant and S.T.M. within the last two years. (T. at 48).

{¶13} Appellant was present and meaningfully participated in the hearing. She 

claimed that the last time she had seen S.T.M. was in December, 2021, at her parent’s 

house, and that she had also seen him the month prior to that, but was unable to provide 

any further details. (T. at 39-40). Appellant testified that at present she had been 

employed as a home health aide for about three weeks, but that she had been 

unemployed for eighteen (18) months prior to that. (T. at 60-61). Appellant admitted that 

she failed to attend all but one of the hearings with regard to the custody determination 

of S.T.M., and that she has never sought any companionship or visitation rights with the 

child. (T. at 35-38, 59-60). She admitted that she has not provided any financial support 

for the child, nor has she participated in any of his school matters or attended any medical 

appointments. (T. at 36-37). She further stated that she did not know who the child’s 

teacher was last year, and that she has not attended any extra-curricular activities in 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2022 AP 09 0028 5

which the child was involved. (T. at 36-37). She admitted that she has not been involved 

in any activities or decisions with regard to the child, including but not limited to medical, 

school, or extra-curricular activities. (T. at 13-14).

{¶14} At the conclusion of the hearing on August 25, 2022, the Probate Court 

granted the petition for adoption, finding, among other things, that Appellant's consent 

was not required. 

{¶15} Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal and herein raises the following 

Assignments of Error:

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

{¶16} “I. THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST 

WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

{¶17} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED

APPELLANT'S MOTION TO CONTINUE.”

I.

{¶18} In her first assignment of error, Appellant argues that the trial court decision 

was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree.

{¶19} Appellant argues that the trial court erred in determining that she failed 

without justifiable cause to provide more than de minimis contact with the child for one 

year prior to the filing of the step-parent adoption petition based on a violation of R.C. 

3109.051(G)(1). We disagree.

{¶20} R.C. §3107.07 governs when consent to adoption is not required. 

Subsection (A) states consent is not required when:
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2022 AP 09 0028 6

{¶21} “A parent of a minor, when it is alleged in the adoption petition and the court 

finds after proper service of notice and hearing, that the parent has failed without 

justifiable cause to communicate with the minor or to provide for the maintenance and 

support of the minor as required by law or judicial decree for a period of at least one year 

immediately preceding either the filing of the adoption petition or the placement of the 

minor in the home of the petitioner.”

{¶22} The right of a natural parent to the care and custody of his or her children 

is one of the most fundamental in law. This fundamental liberty interest of natural parents 

in the care, custody and management of their children is not easily extinguished. 

Santosky v. Kramer (1982), 455 U.S. 745, 753-754. Adoption terminates those 

fundamental rights. R.C. 3107.15(A)(1). Any exception to the requirement of parental 

consent must be strictly construed so as to protect the right of the natural parents to raise 

and nurture their children. In Re: Adoption of Schoeppner (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d. 21, 345 

N.E.2d 608.

{¶23} The petitioner for adoption has the burden of proving by clear and 

convincing evidence that the natural parent has failed to provide support or maintain more 

than de minimis contact with the child for at least a one-year period prior to the filing of 

the petition, and also must prove the failure was without justifiable cause. In Re: Adoption 

of Bovett (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 102, 515 N.E.2d 919. If the petitioner meets his burden 

of proof, then the natural parent has the burden of going forward with evidence to show 

some justifiable cause for his or her failure to support or contact the child. However, the 

burden of proof never shifts from the petitioner. Id.
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2022 AP 09 0028 7

{¶24} In Cross v. Ledford (1954), 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118, the Ohio 

Supreme Court explained that clear and convincing evidence is more than a 

preponderance of the evidence but does not rise to the level of beyond a reasonable 

doubt as required in criminal cases. It must produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm 

belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established. Cross, syllabus by the 

court, paragraph three.

{¶25} An appellate court will not disturb a trial court's decision on adoption unless 

it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re Adoption of Masa (1986), 23 Ohio 

St.3d 163. A judgment supported by some competent, credible evidence will not be 

reversed by a reviewing court as against the manifest weight of the evidence. C.E. Morris 

Co. v. Foley Construction Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279. A reviewing court must not 

substitute its judgment for that of the trial court where there exists some competent and 

credible evidence supporting the judgment rendered by the trial court. Myers v. Garson,

66 Ohio St.3d 610, 1993-Ohio-9.

{¶26} Justifiable cause has been found to exist if the custodial parent significantly 

interferes with or discourages communication between the natural parent and the child. 

In Re: Adoption of: Holcomb (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 361, 481 N.E.2d 613. A probate court 

may examine any preceding events that may have a bearing on the parent's failure to 

communicate with the child, and the court is not restricted to focusing solely on events 

occurring during the statutory one-year period. In re: Adoption of Lauck (1992), 82 Ohio 

App.3d 348, 612 N.E.2d 459.

{¶27} The trial court, as the trier of fact here, determines the weight and credibility 

of the evidence. Seasons Coal Company, Inc. v. City of Cleveland (1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2022 AP 09 0028 8

77, 461 N.E.2d 1273. We may not substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact. Pons 

v. Ohio State Medical Board (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 619, 614 N.E.2d 748. 

{¶28} In its Opinion and Judgment Entry, the trial court found that Appellant “failed 

without justifiable cause to provide more than de minimus contact with the minor for a 

period of at least one year immediately preceding the filing of the adoption petition ...”

{¶29} Appellant maintains that her consent to the adoption was required because

she did have contact with the child within the one year immediately preceding the filing of 

the petition.

{¶30} With regard to the contact that Appellant claims she did have with the minor 

child, we find that the trial court could find that any such encounter, if believed, was de 

minimus. We further find that Appellant failed to put forth any evidence of any meaningful 

contact with the child or any justifiable cause for her failure to have same. She admitted 

that in the five years since Appellee was granted sole custody of S.T.M., she has never 

made any attempts to gain visitation or companionship rights through any legal means.

{¶31} We find, based on the record before us, the trial court could conclude 

Appellant had failed to maintain more than de minimis contact with S.T.M. for a period of 

at least one year immediately preceding the filing of the petition, and such failure was 

unjustified. We therefore do not find that the trial court erred in determining that 

Appellant's consent to S.T.M.’s adoption was not required. 

{¶32} Appellant's first assignment of error is overruled.

II.

{¶33} In her second assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court erred and 

abused its discretion in denying her motion to continue. We disagree.
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2022 AP 09 0028 9

{¶34} The granting of a continuance rests in the trial court's sound discretion. 

State v. Harden, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 02CA27, 2002-Ohio-4673, ¶ 8, citing State v.

Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65, 423 N.E.2d 1078 (1981). In order to find an abuse of that 

discretion, we must determine the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or 

unconscionable and not merely an error of law or judgment. Id., citing Blakemore v. 

Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).

{¶35} Appellant chose to represent herself at the hearing on the petition for 

adoption and when asked to present any witnesses she may have, she informed the court 

that she had none on that day. (T. at 54). She then requested a continuance, which was 

denied. Id.

{¶36} Upon review, we find that Appellant was served with notice of the hearing, 

by certified mail, two months prior to the hearing. She therefore had ample time to procure 

any witnesses she may have wished to call. She also had time to retain or consult with 

legal counsel.

{¶37} We therefore find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

Appellant’s motion for a continuance. 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2022 AP 09 0028 10

{¶38} Appellant's second assignment of error is overruled.

{¶39} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, 

Probate Division, Tuscarawas County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed.

By: Wise, P. J.

Delaney, J., and

Baldwin, J., concur.

JWW/kw 0104