[Cite as In re Adoption of K.R.S., 2020-Ohio-976.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

HANCOCK COUNTY 

 

IN RE: THE ADOPTION OF: 

 CASE NO. 5-19-36 

 K.R.S., 

 O P I N I O N 

[M.C. - APPELLANT] 

 

Appeal from Hancock County Common Pleas Court 

Probate Division 

Trial Court No. 20185032 

Judgment Affirmed 

Date of Decision: March 16, 2020 

 

APPEARANCES: 

 

Brian C. Morrissey for Appellant 

 Jeffrey P. Nunnari for Appellee 
Case No. 5-19-36 

-2- 

SHAW, P. J. 

{¶1} Appellant-respondent, M.C. (“Father”) appeals the August 29, 2019 

judgment of the Hancock County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, finding 

that appellee-petitioner, T.S. (“Step-Father”), proved by clear and convincing 

evidence that Father had failed to provide more than de minimis contact with his 

biological child, K.R.S., and that Father had failed to provide maintenance and 

support to K.R.S. in the year immediately preceding the filing of the adoption 

petition. As a result, the trial court concluded that Father’s consent to Step-Father’s 

Petition for Adoption of K.R.S. is not required, and ordered the case to proceed on 

the adoption petition. On appeal, Father argues that he had justifiable cause for 

failing to communicate with K.R.S. and for failing to provide maintenance and 

support for K.R.S. Therefore, Father contends that the trial court’s decision is 

against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

Facts and Procedural History 

{¶2} K.R.S. was born in Michigan in 2006 to E.S. (“Mother”) and Father, 

who were not married.1

 Mother and Step-Father married in 2017 after being 

together for several years. 

{¶3} On August 15, 2018, Step-Father filed a Petition for Adoption of K.R.S. 

alleging that Father’s consent to the adoption is not required because (1) he had 

 

1

 The record indicates that even though Father was not named on the birth certificate, his paternity of K.R.S. 

was established through a child support proceeding in Michigan.
Case No. 5-19-36 

-3- 

failed without justifiable cause to provide more than de minimis contact with K.R.S. 

for a year immediately preceding the filing of the adoption petition; and (2) he had 

failed without justifiable cause to provide for the maintenance and support of K.R.S. 

as required by law for a period of at least one year immediately preceding the filing 

of the adoption petition. See R.C. 3107.07(A). Step-Father further included as 

grounds for his petition that Father had been incarcerated from 2011 to 2013 due to 

his third degree felony conviction for criminal sexual conduct; Father had been 

incarcerated from December 2015 to October 2016 for parole violations; and that 

Father is required to register as a sex offender for his lifetime. 

{¶4} Notice of a Hearing on the Petition was sent to Father and he filed an 

objection to the adoption. The trial court set a hearing on the matter. 

{¶5} On August 8, 2019, the trial court conducted a hearing on whether 

Father’s consent to the adoption is not required under R.C. 3107.07(A). Step-Father 

and Mother provided testimony in support of establishing that Father’s consent to 

the adoption is not required. Father and his father, paternal grandfather, both 

testified in support of the position that Father’s consent is required. 

{¶6} On August 29, 2019, the trial court issued a judgment entry finding that 

Father’s consent to the adoption is not required. Specifically, the trial court found 

by clear and convincing evidence that Father had failed to provide more than de 

minimis contact with K.R.S. and had failed to provide maintenance and support for 
Case No. 5-19-36 

-4- 

K.R.S. in the year immediately preceding the filing of the adoption petition. 

Accordingly, the trial court determined that the adoption could proceed without 

Father’s consent. 

{¶7} Father filed a notice of appeal from this judgment entry, asserting the 

following assignments of error. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1 

THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION THAT THE APPELLANT 

FAILED WITHOUT JUSTIFIABLE CAUSE TO PROVIDE 

FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF HIS MINOR 

CHILD WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE 

EVIDENCE. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2 

THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION THAT THE APPELLANT 

FAILED TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT AS 

REQUIRED BY LAW OR JUDICIAL DECREE IN THE YEAR 

IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE FILING OF THE 

ADOPTION PETITION IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST 

WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 3 

THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION THAT APPELLANT 

FAILED WITHOUT JUSTIFIABLE CAUSE TO PROVIDE DE 

MINIMUS [SIC] CONTACT WITH HIS CHILD FOR AT 

LEAST ONE YEAR PRECEDING THE FILING THE 

ADOPTION PETITION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST 

WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. 

{¶8} For ease of discussion, we elect to address the assignments of error 

together. 
Case No. 5-19-36 

-5- 

First, Second, and Third Assignments of Error 

{¶9} On appeal, Father argues that the trial court erred in finding his consent 

to Step-Father’s adoption of K.R.S. is not required. Specifically, Father argues that 

the trial court erred in determining that he had failed without justifiable cause both 

to provide more than de minimis contact with the child and to provide proper 

maintenance and support during the one-year look-back period of R.C. 3107.07(A). 

Legal Standard 

{¶10} The right of natural parents to the care and custody of their children is 

one of the most precious and fundamental in law. In re Adoption of Masa, 23 Ohio 

St.3d 163, 164 (1986) citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982). An 

adoption permanently terminates the parental rights of a natural parent. In re 

Adoption of Reams, 52 Ohio App.3d 52, 55 (10th Dist.1989). Therefore, “[b]ecause 

adoption terminates these rights, Ohio law requires parental consent to an adoption 

unless a specific statutory exemption exists.” In re Adoption of A.N.B., 12th Dist. 

Preble No. CA2012-04-006, 2012-Ohio-3880, ¶ 5 citing In re Caudill, 4th Dist. 

Jackson No. 05CA4, 2005-Ohio-3927, ¶ 14. 

{¶11} One such statutory exemption to the consent requirement is contained 

in R.C. 3107.07(A), which states. 

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, 
Case No. 5-19-36 

-6- 

finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent has failed 

without justifiable cause to provide more than de minimis 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). “R.C. 3107.07(A) is written in the disjunctive.” In re Adoption 

of H.R., 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-14-15, 2014-Ohio-5390, ¶ 23. “Therefore, a failure 

without justifiable cause to provide either more than de minimis contact with the 

minor or maintenance and support for the one-year time period is sufficient to 

obviate the need for a parent’s consent.” (Emphasis sic.) Id.; see also In re Adoption 

of A.H., 9th Dist. Lorain No. 12CA010312, 2013-Ohio-1600, ¶ 9. 

{¶12} The Supreme Court of Ohio has articulated a two-step analysis for 

probate courts to employ when applying R.C. 3107.07(A). See In re the Adoption 

of B.G.F., 3d Dist. Shelby No. 17-18-06, 2018-Ohio-5063, ¶ 25 citing In re Adoption 

of M.B., 131 Ohio St.3d 186, 2012-Ohio-236, ¶ 23. 

{¶13} The first step involves the factual question of whether the petitioner 

has proven, by clear and convincing evidence, the natural parent failed to provide 

for the maintenance and support of the child or failed to have more than de minimis

contact with the child. In re Adoption of M.B. at ¶ 23. Clear and convincing 

evidence is that measure or degree of proof which is more than a mere 

“preponderance of the evidence,” but not to the extent of such certainty as is 
Case No. 5-19-36 

-7- 

required “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal cases, and which will produce in 

the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be 

established. Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the 

syllabus. “A trial court has discretion to make these determinations, and, in 

connection with the first step of the analysis, an appellate court applies an abuse-ofdiscretion standard when reviewing a probate court decision.” In re Adoption of 

M.B. at ¶ 25. The term abuse of discretion connotes more than an error of law or 

judgment; it implies that the court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or 

unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983). 

{¶14} If a probate court makes a finding that the parent failed to support or 

contact the children, the court proceeds to the second step of the analysis and 

determines whether justifiable cause for the failure has been proven by clear and 

convincing evidence. 2 In re Adoption of M.B., 131 Ohio St.3d 186, 2012-Ohio-236. 

The question of whether justifiable cause for the failure to contact the child has been 

proven in a particular case, “is a determination for the probate court and will not be 

disturbed on appeal unless such determination is against the manifest weight of the 

 

2

 Recently, the Supreme Court of Ohio articulated a three-step analysis for maintenance and support issues 

under R.C. 3107.07(A). Specifically, the Supreme Court state that “the court must first determine what the 

law or judicial decree required of the parent during the year immediately preceding either the filing of the 

adoption petition or the placement of the minor in the home of the petitioner. Second, the court determines 

whether during that year the parent complied with his or her obligation under the law or judicial decree. 

Third, if during that year the parent did not comply with his or her obligation under the law or judicial decree, 

the court determines whether there was justifiable cause for that failure. See In re Adoption of B.I., 157 Ohio 

St. 3d 29, 2019-Ohio-2450, ¶ 15. The same burdens of proof and standards of review apply to steps two and 

three as stated in In re Adoption of M.B., 131 Ohio St.3d 186, 2012-Ohio-236. 
Case No. 5-19-36 

-8- 

evidence.” Id. “In determining whether a judgment is against the manifest weight 

of the evidence, we must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all 

reasonable inferences, consider witness credibility, and determine whether, in 

resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created 

such a manifest miscarriage of justice that there must be a reversal of the judgment 

and an order for a new trial.” (Internal quotations omitted.) In re Adoption of 

L.C.W., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2014-08-169, 2015-Ohio-61, 2015 WL 135320, ¶ 

14. In so doing, we must be mindful that the probate court is in the best position to 

observe the demeanor of the parties and assess the credibility and accuracy of the 

testimony. 

Evidence Adduced at the Hearing 

{¶15} In support of his position that Father’s consent to the adoption is not 

required, Step-Father testified that K.R.S. was thirteen-years-old at the time of the 

hearing and that he has known K.R.S. for ten years. Step-Father explained that he 

and Mother have been in a relationship for several years, living together in a 

household with five other children. Step-Father acknowledged that K.R.S. regards 

him as a father figure and confides in him. Step-Father further stated that Father 

has had no contact with or provided any financial support for K.R.S. within the year 

preceding the filing of the adoption petition in August 2018. 
Case No. 5-19-36 

-9- 

{¶16} Mother provided testimony also describing a close relationship 

between Step-Father and K.R.S. She explained that the adoption petition was filed 

because K.R.S. asked Step-Father to adopt him. Mother recalled that the last time 

Father saw K.R.S. was in October of 2015, and the last time that Father had any 

meaningful contact with K.R.S. was in 2010 prior to Father being incarcerated for 

the first time. Mother stated that she is sole legal custodian of K.R.S. and that 

Father’s visitation was suspended while he was incarcerated. Mother explained that 

K.R.S. still has contact with his paternal grandfather and Father’s extended family. 

Mother stated that she would permit Father to see K.R.S. if he asked, but Father has 

not. Mother further testified that even though Father’s visitation with K.R.S. is 

restricted, he is nevertheless permitted to have other forms of contact like sending 

birthday cards or gifts, which Father has not attempted to do. 

{¶17} Mother stated that she had not received any child support from Father 

for K.R.S. since January of 2010. She testified the current child support order in 

place was issued in the State of Michigan, where Father lives and where she and 

K.R.S. lived prior to 2016. Mother stated that this order obligates Father to pay 

child support for K.R.S. in the amount of $22.06 per week. In 2011, shortly after 

he reported to prison, Father successfully petitioned to have his child support 

payments “reserved” so that his prison wages were not garnished and arrearages did 

not accrue while he was incarcerated. However, testimony at the hearing indicated 
Case No. 5-19-36 

-10- 

that Father was required to notify the proper authorities within twenty-eight days of 

his release from prison to have the child support order reinstated, which father failed 

to do. 

{¶18} For his part, Father testified that upon his recent release from prison a 

condition of his parole prohibits him from having contact with minors, even his own 

child. Father explained his ability to interact with K.R.S. is complicated by the fact 

that he also is not permitted to have a device with internet capabilities. Father 

acknowledged that prior to 2015, when he returned to prison for a parole violation, 

he had special permission from his parole officer to see K.R.S. However, Father 

claimed that after he returned to prison in 2015, he lost contact with Mother and did 

not know of K.R.S.’s whereabouts. 

{¶19} Father admitted that he has not paid child support for K.R.S. since he 

was released from prison in October of 2018, despite being employed full-time for 

almost a year. Father claimed he did not know how to reinstate his child support 

order. Father stated that he met with his parole officer twice a month; that he has 

had the same parole officer for the past eighteen months; and that his parole officer 

is aware he has a child. Father acknowledged that he is permitted to see K.R.S. with 

permission from his parole officer, but that permission is not currently in place. 

{¶20} Paternal Grandfather also testified on father’s behalf. He recalled 

being in touch with Mother regarding K.R.S. around Christmas of 2015. However, 
Case No. 5-19-36 

-11- 

the two had a falling out when Mother discovered that Paternal Grandfather left 

K.R.S. alone with Father when Mother had allowed Paternal Grandfather to take 

K.R.S. for a visitation. Paternal Grandfather claimed he lost contact with Mother 

and K.R.S. after that point, and only discovered that they were living in Ohio when 

he learned about the adoption petition. Paternal Grandfather noted that Mother 

recently permitted K.R.S. to spend a weekend with him and his extended family. 

The visitation time was arranged between Mother and Father’s sister. 

Discussion 

1. Failure to Provide Contact 

{¶21} In its August 29, 2019 Judgment Entry, the trial court found that there 

is no justifiable cause for Father’s failure to communicate with K.R.S., specifically 

the trial court found: 

[Father] acknowledges that he has not visited or contacted 

[K.R.S.] within the last year. However, [Father] argues that there 

is justifiable cause due to his order that he not have contact with 

any children including his own. This requirement is a condition 

of his probation. [Father] acknowledged that he was able to earn 

his way to have contact with [K.R.S.] at one time. After [Father’s] 

initial release from prison, he was compliant with probation and 

received permission from his probation officer to have visits with 

[K.R.S.]. Those visits occurred until [Father] violated his 

probation and was placed back in prison. Since his last release 

from prison, he has not yet re-earned privileges to have visits and 

therefore visits have not occurred. Therefore, it is not simply the 

order of no contact that has precluded [Father] from the ability 

to visit his son, it is [Father’s] own behavior that caused the

privilege to be taken away by his probation officer and the Court 

cannot find that failure justifiable. Accordingly, the Court hereby 
Case No. 5-19-36 

-12- 

finds by clear and convincing evidence that [Father] has failed

without justifiable cause to provide more than de minimus [sic]

contact with the child for a period of at least a year immediately 

preceding the filing of the adoption petition. 

(Doc. No. 25 at 3-4.) 

{¶22} It is undisputed that Father has failed to maintain contact with K.R.S. 

since 2015. Nevertheless, Father argues that the conditions of his parole, which 

required him to have no contact with minors, and the suspension of his visitation 

with K.R.S. is justifiable cause for his failure to communicate with K.S for at least 

one year immediately preceding the filing of the adoption petition. Father further 

argues that Mother’s move to Ohio constituted significant interference which also 

justifies his lack of contact with K.R.S. 

{¶23} At the outset, we note that the record supports the trial court’s 

observation that “it is not simply the order of no contact that has precluded [Father] 

from the ability to visit his son.” (Doc. No. 25 at 3). Rather, the record clearly 

indicates that there were means that Father could have pursued to have contact with 

K.R.S. The record demonstrates that Father was in fact granted permission by his 

parole officer in 2015 to have contact with K.R.S. This notwithstanding, there is 

nothing in the record to indicate Father again attempted to get permission from his 

parole officer to see K.R.S. during the time he was released from prison for parole 

violations in October 2016 or in October 2018, after he served a three-month prison 

term. The record further indicates that Father never sought visitation through the 
Case No. 5-19-36 

-13- 

Michigan Court by attempting to modify the agreement to provide for parenting 

time. 

{¶24} Moreover, the record suggests that Mother was candid about her move 

to Ohio with K.R.S. and she maintained a point of contact with the court in Michigan 

using Maternal Grandmother’s address. Despite Father’s contentions, the record 

fails to establish that Mother attempted to hide K.R.S. from him. To the contrary, 

Paternal Grandfather was able to make contact with Mother in Ohio and even 

arranged for weekend visitations with K.R.S. Yet, Father did not attempt to contact 

K.R.S. through his family members. Based on the foregoing, we find that the trial 

court’s determination that Father has failed without justifiable cause to provide more 

than de minimis contact with K.R.S. during the relevant one year time frame is

supported by the manifest weight of the evidence. 

2. Failure to Provide Maintenance and Support 

{¶25} In its August 29, 2019 Judgement Entry, the trial court found that there 

is no justifiable cause for Father’s failure to provide maintenance and support for 

K.R.S. Specifically, the trial court found: 

[Father] is not listed on the birth certificate provided to the Court 

as [K.R.S.’s] father. However the Court was provided 

documentation that [Mother] and [Father] were involved in a 

paternity action regarding [K.R.S.] in the Jackson County Court

in Michigan. (See Exhibits 8, 9, and 10). These documents 

illustrate that [Father] has established paternity of this child, was 

ordered to pay support at one time and that support was 

“reserved” when [Father] was incarcerated. (See Exhibit 10). 
Case No. 5-19-36 

-14- 

The court order goes on to state “[c]hild support shall be 

reinstated 28 days after the payer of support is released from 

incarceration. The payer must immediately report his release 

from incarceration to the Friend of Court.” [Father] admits that 

he never contacted the Court to have child support reinstated 

after his release from prison on either occasion. He argues since 

no support was ordered he did not fail to support [K.R.S.] and 

therefore [Father’s] consent is necessary for this adoption. The 

Court is not convinced. Failing to contact the Court to have the 

support order reinstated is failing to support the child. [Father] 

also admits that he did not send any money to the child for 

support since 2012 when his prison wages were garnished for 

child support. [Father] also admits that he is currently employed 

full-time and has been for over a year. The Court hereby finds by 

clear and convincing evidence that [Father] has failed without 

justifiable cause 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 the filing of the adoption

petition or the placement of the minor in the home of [StepFather]. 

(Doc. No. 25 at 3.) 

{¶26} On appeal, Father likens this case to those cases which have held that 

a parent’s nonsupport of his or her minor child pursuant to a zero-support order of 

a court of competent jurisdiction provides “justifiable cause” for the parent’s failure 

to provide maintenance and support and therefore does not extinguish the 

requirement of that parent’s consent to the adoption of the child. See In re Adoption 

of B.I., 157 Ohio St. 3d 29, 2019-Ohio-2450. 

{¶27} However, this is not a case where a court has reduced a parent’s child 

support to zero, thereby relieving the parent of the duty to provide support under a 

judicial decree. See In re Adoption of B.I., 157 Ohio St. 3d 29, 2019-Ohio-2450, ¶ 
Case No. 5-19-36 

-15- 

17. Rather, the uncontroverted evidence before the trial court indicates that there is 

in place a valid child support order obligating Father to pay $22.06 per week for 

K.R.S.’s support and that this order was “reserved” or “paused” at Father’s request 

while he was incarcerated in 2012. It is undisputed by the parties that Father was 

required to notify the proper authorities in Michigan to reinstate his child support 

obligation within twenty-eight days of his release from prison. Father 

acknowledges that he failed to do so. We concur with the trial court’s conclusion 

in this instance that “[f]ailing to contact the Court to have the support order 

reinstated is failing to support the child.” (Doc. No. 25 at 3). Accordingly, we 

conclude the trial court’s determination that Father failed without justifiable cause 

to provide for the support for K.R.S. as required by law or judicial decree within the 

relevant statutory time frame is supported by the weight of the evidence. 

{¶28} For all these reasons, the assignments of error are overruled and the 

judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

Judgment Affirmed 

PRESTON and WILLAMOWSKI, J.J., concur. 

/jlr