[Cite as In re Adoption of B.A.S., 2011-Ohio-4180.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

SHELBY COUNTY 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

 CASE NO. 17-11-01 

 THE PROPOSED ADOPTION 

 OF B.A.S. 

 O P I N I O N 

[TAMMY LAWSON - APPELLANT]. 

 

Appeal from Shelby County Common Pleas Court 

Probate Division 

Trial Court No. 2010-ADP-00008 

Judgment Affirmed 

Date of Decision: August 22, 2011 

 

APPEARANCES: 

Cheryl L. Collins for Appellant 

Timothy S. Sell for Appellee 

WILLAMOWSKI, J.
Case No. 17-11-01 

-2- 

{¶1} Respondent-appellant Tammy L. brings this appeal from the judgment 

of the Court of Common Pleas of Shelby County, Probate Division, finding that 

her consent was not necessary in the adoption of B.A.S. For the reasons set forth 

below, the judgment is affirmed. 

{¶2} On November 4, 2005, B.A.S. was born to Tammy and Joseph J. In 

2006, B.A.S. was placed in the home of Angela S. and Lynn S. by Tammy and 

Joseph. Tammy was incarcerated at the time and Joseph was unable to care for 

the child. The trial court granted legal custody of B.A.S. to Angela and Lynn on 

July 26, 2007. 

{¶3} On May 7, 2010, Angela and Lynn filed a petition to adopt the child. 

Angela and Lynn alleged in the petition that the consent of Tammy and Joseph 

was not needed because they had failed without justifiable cause to communicate 

with the child or to support the child for the period of one year immediately 

preceding the filing of the petition. Both Tammy and Joseph filed letters objecting 

to the granting of the petition. A hearing was held on the matter on November 15, 

2010. Joseph did not appear for that hearing. The trial court entered judgment on 

January 13, 2011, finding that the consent of Tammy and Joseph were not 

necessary for the adoption petition to proceed. Tammy appeals from this 

judgment and raises the following assignments of error. 

First Assignment of Error 
Case No. 17-11-01 

-3- 

The trial court’s decision was against the manifest weight of the 

evidence. 

Second Assignment of Error 

The trial court prejudicially erred in not permitting [Tammy] to 

inquire into an area of potential bias during [Angela’s] 

testimony. 

Third Assignment of Error 

The trial court prejudicially erred in not permitting [Tammy] to 

present telephone records.

The assignments of error will be addressed out of order. 

{¶4} In the second assignment of error, Tammy alleges that the trial court 

erred in not permitting her to question Angela about prior failed adoptions. Parties 

are permitted to impeach witnesses by showing that they may have a motive to 

misrepresent the truth. Evid.R. 616(A). An appellate court, however, may not 

reverse a trial court’s ruling on the scope of cross-examination absent a showing 

of an abuse of discretion. Calderon v. Sharkey (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 218, 436 

N.E.2d 1008. To find an abuse of discretion, the record must reveal that the trial 

court’s decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. 

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

{¶5} Here, Tammy claims that the evidence may have shown that Angela 

had attempted to adopt on numerous prior occasions, but had failed. Tammy 
Case No. 17-11-01 

-4- 

claims that this failure to adopt made Angela desperate to adopt B.A.S. and was a 

motive for Angela to lie. However, a review of the record indicates that there is 

no evidence that this testimony would have been elicited. In addition, Tammy 

does not even claim that this is the evidence that would have been elicited, only 

that it might have been the testimony.1

 When the objection to the testimony was 

made, Tammy made no attempt to show why the testimony was relevant. Thus, 

there is nothing in the record to indicate that the trial court abused its discretion. 

The second assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶6} The third assignment of error alleges that the trial court erred in 

excluding the phone records. Tammy argues that as a pro se litigant, the trial court 

should have explained the process for authentication of documents to her. 

In Ohio, a pro se litigant “is presumed to have knowledge of the 

law and of correct legal procedure and is held to the same 

standard as all other litigants.” * * * A pro se litigant “cannot 

expect or demand special treatment from the judge, who is to sit 

as impartial arbiter.” Id. 

Pro se litigants are not accorded greater rights than parties who 

retain counsel, and the trial court “’does not have the duty of 

assisting a pro se litigant in the practice of law.’” 

Citibank S. Dakota, N.A. v. Wood, 169 Ohio App.3d 269, 2006-Ohio-5755, ¶57-

58, 862 N.E.2d 576 (citations omitted). Although the frustration of Tammy at her 

inability to authenticate her exhibits due to her lack of understanding of the 

 

1

 If the testimony really did show what Tammy alleges on appeal, it would have been relevant. However, 

that alone does not create an abuse of discretion. 
Case No. 17-11-01 

-5- 

necessary legal procedures is understandable, she has no right to have the trial 

court assist her in the presentation of her case. Thus, the trial court did not abuse 

its discretion by not explaining to Tammy how to authenticate the documents. The 

third assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶7} In her first assignment of error, Tammy alleges that the trial court’s 

judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

Consent to adoption is not required of any of the following: 

(A) A parent of a minor, when it is alleged in the adoption 

petition and the court, after proper service of notice and 

hearing, finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent 

has failed without justifiable cause to provide more than de 

minimus contact 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. 

R.C. 3107.07. A review of the record shows that the only communication between 

Tammy and B.A.S. in the year immediately preceding the filing of the petition to 

adopt was a belated Christmas gift received in January. One contact in twelve 

months is insufficient to establish more than de minimus contact.2

 Given the facts 

before the trial court, the trial court’s decision that Tammy had not had more than 

 

2

 Even if one accepts that Tammy attempted to contact B.A.S. on several occasions, but her phone calls 

were not answered, this does not justify her failure to make any other attempts. She had a current address 

for B.A.S. and was able to send one package. She could have sent other communication to B.A.S., but did 

not attempt to do so, nor did she ever attempt to personally visit B.A.S.. 
Case No. 17-11-01 

-6- 

de minimus contact with B.A.S. in the year before the petition was not against the 

manifest weight of the evidence.3

 Id. The first assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶8} Having found no prejudicial error in the proceedings below, the 

judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Shelby County, Probate Division, is 

affirmed. 

Judgment Affirmed 

ROGERS, P.J. and PRESTON, J., concur in Judgment Only. 

/jlr 

 

3

 Having affirmed the trial court’s determination that the contact was de minimus, this court need not 

address the question of whether there was support.