[Cite as In re D.M.B.-M., 2024-Ohio-675.]

COURT OF APPEALS

LICKING COUNTY, OHIO

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE MATTER OF: D.M.B-M. : JUDGES:

: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.

 and : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.

: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.

IN THE MATTER OF: D.L.B-M. :

:

: Case Nos. 2023 CA 00080

: 2023 CA 00081

:

 : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Licking County 

Court of Common Pleas, Probate 

Division, Case Nos. 2022-5073 and 

2022-5074

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT: February 22, 2024

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellant M.B. For Defendant-Appellees T.M. & M.M.

JERMAINE L. COLQUITT W. SCOTT HAYES

33 W. Main St. Suite 109 195 E. Broad Street

Newark, Ohio 43055 Pataskala, Ohio 43062

ALLISON MACLEOD-OWEN

Guardian ad Litem

110 E. Elm Street Suite B

Granville, Ohio 43023
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 0080, 2023 CA 0081 2

Baldwin, J.

{¶1} The appellant appeals the decision of the Licking County Court of Common 

Pleas, Probate Division, which granted the appellees’ petition for adoption of the 

appellant’s minor children, D.M.B-M. and D.L.B-M. 

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE

{¶2} The appellant is the biological mother of minor children D.M.B-M. and 

D.L.B-M., who were removed from her care in 2014. Initially they lived with their maternal 

grandmother, M.T. The appellant has four other children, who are not the subject of this 

case, who were also living with MT. Six children were too much for M.T., and D.M.B-M. 

and D.L.B-M were subsequently placed with the appellees. This appeal deals only with 

D.M.B-M. and D.L.B-M (hereinafter “the children”.) 

{¶3} The appellees were awarded legal custody of the children on December 1, 

2015, and the children have been in their custody and care since that time. On July 18, 

2022, the appellees filed a petition for adoption of the children.

{¶4} Prior to the appellees’ petition for adoption, the children regularly visited 

M.T. and their siblings. However, after the petition was filed M.T. and the children’s 

siblings began to be cruel to the children and harass the appellees. M.T. threatened to 

continue her harassment of the appellees until they withdrew the petition. A Guardian ad 

Litem (“GAL”) was appointed for the children. 

{¶5} The GAL determined that despite M.T.’s harassment, the appellees 

provided a stable, consistent, and loving presence for the children. The children were 

enrolled in school and learning well, and were involved in extracurricular activities. In 

addition, the appellees kept up with the children’s medical and therapy appointments.
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 0080, 2023 CA 0081 3

{¶6} The GAL determined further that the children were comfortable and happy 

in the appellees’ home. The children had bonded with appellees, and had communicated 

to the GAL that they were excited to be adopted by the appellees. The GAL opined that 

adoption was the natural progression towards providing stability in the children’s lives.

{¶7} The appellees have raised the children for most of their lives. The children 

have medical conditions, and the appellees keep up with their appointments and manage 

their health care. Their overall health is described as good. 

{¶8} The appellant struggles with addiction from the use of illicit drugs.

{¶9} Appellee T.M. pleaded guilty to a charge of disorderly conduct arising from 

an incident in which, while at the police station to be fingerprinted in connection with his 

petition for adoption, he took D.M.B-M.’s face in his hand in order to make the child look 

at him after he had asked D.M.B-M. to stop making noise in the lobby. The incident left a 

small scratch on the child’s chin from T.M.’s fingernail. The children’s maternal 

grandmother, M.T., called the police and alleged that T.M. choked the child, resulting in 

domestic violence and assault charges. The GAL, who had been appointed at the 

appellees’ request following the charges, investigated the allegations and advised the trial 

court that she had no concerns that the children were in any danger from appellee T.M. 

{¶10} On February 9, 2023, the trial court conducted a full bifurcated evidentiary 

hearing on the petition for adoption. The trial court heard testimony from the appellant, 

the appellees, the children’s oldest biological sibling, the children’s grandmother M.T.,

and the GAL. In addition, the trial court conducted in camera interviews with the children. 

Further, because D.M.B-M. was at the age at which his consent to the adoption was 

required, the trial court briefly spoke with him on the record. D.M.B-M. told the court that 
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 0080, 2023 CA 0081 4

he was excited about being adopted by the appellees, that his adoption by the appellees 

was “something he would like to have happen,” and provided the trial court with his 

consent. 

{¶11} The trial court considered the evidence presented, and granted the 

appellees’ petition. The appellant appealed, and on July 25, 2023 this Court reversed and 

remanded the matter to the trial court “to sufficiently indicate whether or not the trial court 

considered all the factors in R.C. 3107.161(B) and explain their application to this case.” 

In the Matter of D.M.B-M., 5

th Dist. Licking Nos. 2023 CA 00014, 2023 CA 00015, 2023-

Ohio-2560, ¶21.

{¶12} On October 31, 2023, the trial court issued a Judgment Entry in which it 

discussed in detail how each factor set forth in R.C. 3107.161(B) applied to this case, and 

again granted the appellees’ petition for adoption. 

{¶13} The appellant filed a timely appeal, and sets forth the following sole 

assignment of error:

{¶14} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT FOUND 

THAT THE ADOPTION OF D.L.B. AND D.M.B. WAS IN THE CHILDREN’S BEST 

INTEREST BECAUSE THIS FINDING IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE 

EVIDENCE. R. at 80.” 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

{¶15} A probate court's decision to grant or deny an adoption petition is reviewed 

under an abuse-of-discretion standard. In Re Adoption of Ridenour, 61 Ohio St.3d 319, 

320, 574 N.E.2d 1055 (1991). An abuse of discretion is more than an error of law or 

judgment, it is a decision that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. In re 
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 0080, 2023 CA 0081 5

Adoption of A.L.S., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2017-09-146, 106 N.E.3d 69, 2018-Ohio-507, 

¶ 16. “[T]he vast majority of cases in which an abuse of discretion is asserted involve 

claims that the decision is unreasonable.” Effective Shareholder Solutions v. Natl. City 

Bank, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-080451 and Hamilton Nos. C-090117, 2009-Ohio-6200, 

¶ 9. A decision is unreasonable where it is not supported by a sound reasoning process. 

Id.

ANALYSIS

{¶16} The appellant does not dispute that her consent to the adoption was 

unnecessary due to her failure to have de minimis contact with the children or provide 

support for them for within the one year prior to the filing of the petition for adoption. Thus, 

the only issue in the case sub judice is whether the trial court abused its discretion when 

it found that the appellees’ adoption of the children was in their best interest. We find that 

it did not.

{¶17} This Court discussed best interest analysis in the context of adoption in the 

case of In re Adoption of Kat. P., Fairfield Nos. 10CA16 and 10CA17, 2010-Ohio-3623, 

stating:

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, 492 N.E.2d 140. 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, 376 N.E.2d 578. A 

reviewing court must not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court 
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 0080, 2023 CA 0081 6

where there exists some competent and credible evidence supporting the 

judgment rendered by the trial court. Myers v. Garson, 66 Ohio St.3d 610, 

614 N.E.2d 742, 1993–Ohio–9.

Id. at ¶ 8.

{¶18} R.C. 3107.161 sets forth the factors a trial court must consider when making 

a best interest determination in a contested adoption, and states: 

(A) As used in this section, “the least detrimental available alternative” 

means the alternative that would have the least long-term negative impact 

on the child.

(B) When a court makes a determination in a contested adoption 

concerning the best interest of a child, the court shall consider all relevant 

factors including, but not limited to, all of the following:

(1) The least detrimental available alternative for safeguarding the 

child's growth and development;

(2) The age and health of the child at the time the best interest 

determination is made and, if applicable, at the time the child was removed 

from the home;

(3) The wishes of the child in any case in which the child's age and 

maturity makes this feasible;

(4) The duration of the separation of the child from a parent;

(5) Whether the child will be able to enter into a more stable and 

permanent family relationship, taking into account the conditions of the 
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 0080, 2023 CA 0081 7

child's current placement, the likelihood of future placements, and the 

results of prior placements;

(6) The likelihood of safe reunification with a parent within a reasonable 

period of time;

(7) The importance of providing permanency, stability, and continuity of 

relationships for the child;

(8) The child's interaction and interrelationship with the child's parents, 

siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child's best 

interest;

(9) The child's adjustment to the child's current home, school, and 

community;

(10) The mental and physical health of all persons involved in the 

situation;

(11) Whether any person involved in the situation has been convicted of, 

pleaded guilty to, or accused of any criminal offense involving any act that 

resulted in a child being abused or neglected; whether the person, in a case 

in which a child has been adjudicated to be an abused or neglected child, 

has been determined to be the perpetrator of the abusive or neglectful act 

that is the basis of the adjudication; whether the person has been convicted 

of, pleaded guilty to, or accused of a violation of section 2919.25 of the 

Revised Code involving a victim who at the time of the commission of the 

offense was a member of the person's family or household; and whether 

the person has been convicted of, pleaded guilty to, or accused of any 
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 0080, 2023 CA 0081 8

offense involving a victim who at the time of the commission of the offense 

was a member of the person's family or household and caused physical 

harm to the victim in the commission of the offense.

(C) A person who contests an adoption has the burden of providing the 

court material evidence needed to determine what is in the best interest of 

the child and must establish that the child's current placement is not the 

least detrimental available alternative.

{¶19} During the best interest portion of the February 9, 2023 hearing, the trial 

court heard testimony from the appellant, the appellees, one of the children’s siblings, the 

children’s grandmother M.T., and the GAL. In addition, the trial court questioned D.M.BM. on the record regarding his consent to the adoption, and conducted in camera 

interview with both of the children. In rendering its October 31, 2023 decision, the trial 

court considered the sworn testimony and exhibits entered into the record during the

February 9, 2023 hearing, the documentary evidence contained in its file, the substance 

of the in camera interviews with the children, and the report and recommendation of the 

GAL. 

{¶20} The trial court separately considered and applied each of the eleven factors 

set forth in R.C. 3107.161(B) to the facts of this case, and with regard to each found as 

follows:

R.C. 3107.161(B)(1). The trial court determined that the appellees were the 

least detrimental available alternative for safeguarding the children’s growth 

and development, particularly in light of the actions of the birth family 

towards the children after the filing of the appellees’ petition. In addition, the 
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 0080, 2023 CA 0081 9

children told the GAL that they were very excited to be adopted by the 

appellees, the appellees provided safe and suitable housing for the children 

with adequate space, and the children were thriving in their current home 

with the appellees.

R.C. 3107.161(B)(2). The trial court determined that the age and health of 

the children at the time of the best interest determination, and at the time 

the children were removed from the home, supported granting the 

appellees’ petition for adoption. The children were first removed from their 

birth parents’ home when they were 4 and 2, had been in the appellees’ 

care since they were 5 and 3, were 12 and 10 years old at the time of the 

hearing, and were thriving in the appellees’ home. 

R.C. 3107.161(B)(3). The children made their wishes known to the trial 

court during its in camera interview with each of them, after which the trial 

court found that the age and maturity of the children was such that it could 

give their desire to be adopted by the appellees significant weight. Further, 

D.M.B-M was at the age at which his consent to the adoption was required, 

and his consent to the adoption was executed in the presence of the trial 

court.

R.C. 3107.161(B)(4). The trial court determined that the children had not 

been in the care of their birth parents since the ages of 4 and 2, had been 

separated from their birth parents for eight years prior to the trial court’s 

consideration of the July 18, 2022 petition for adoption, and had been 

placed with the appellees since 2015.
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 0080, 2023 CA 0081 10

R.C. 3107.161(B)(5). The trial court determined that the children had 

bonded with the appellees, and had been thriving with them since 2015, 

rendering further placement unlikely. In addition, prior placements with 

other birth relatives had been unsuccessful. 

R.C. 3107.161(B)(6). The trial court determined that it was very unlikely that 

the children could be safely reunited with their birth parents at any time, let 

alone within a reasonable amount of time. Their birth father’s whereabouts 

were unknown and he had an extensive criminal record; and, the appellant 

testified that she was not in a position to care for the children. 

R.C. 3107.161(B)(7). The trial court determined that providing the children 

with permanency and stability now, and ensuring continuation of the 

relationship developed with the appellees, was immensely important. 

R.C. 3107.161(B)(8). The trial court noted that the children’s interaction and 

interrelationship with their parents, siblings, and grandmother had affected 

them negatively, and continued to cause them upset even at the time of the 

evidentiary hearing. In contrast, the children’s relationship with each other 

and with the appellees significantly impacted them in a positive manner. 

R.C. 3107.161(B)(9). The trial court determined that the children had been 

placed in the appellees’ home for most of their lives, were enrolled in school,

and participated in extra-curricular activities. The appellees’ home was 

located in a friendly and safe community, and provided the children with a 

sense of belonging. 
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 0080, 2023 CA 0081 11

R.C. 3107.161(B)(10). The trial court determined that the mental and 

physical health of all persons involved supported the appellees’ adoption of 

the children. The appellant has a history of struggling with substance use 

disorder. The birth father’s mental and physical health was unknown. 

Neither of the appellees suffer from a mental or physical health condition 

that prevent them from providing care for the children long term. D.L.B-M. 

has an IEP at school and was being tested for dyslexia and other learning 

disabilities, was being treated for migraines, and has a birth defect related 

to her heart that was being monitored by doctors. D.M.B-M. was receiving 

counseling due to the upset caused by the children’s birth family. The 

children were otherwise healthy and were receiving appropriate medical 

care while in the appellees’ care. 

R.C. 3107.161(B)(11). Finally, the trial court determined that while appellee 

T.M. had been charged with domestic violence and assault, and pleaded 

guilty to disorderly conduct in connection with an interaction he had with 

D.M.B-M., the videotaped evidence, the witnesses - including D.M.B-M. 

himself, and the GAL all confirmed that the incident was isolated and 

relatively minor. Appellee T.M. complied with the requirements of the plea 

agreement. The GAL had no concerns regarding the children’s wellbeing 

while in the appellees’ care, and recommended that the adoptions be 

granted. The trial court considered all of the evidence presented regarding 

the event, and found that the children were safe and well-cared for in the 

appellees’ household.
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 0080, 2023 CA 0081 12

{¶21} The trial court heard the evidence, and was in the best position to ascertain 

the veracity of the witnesses, including the children when interviewed in camera. Based 

upon the trial court’s detailed application of the R.C. 3107.161(B) factors, it found that

granting the appellees’ petitions for adoption of the minor children was in their best 

interest. Given the testimony and evidence presented, we cannot find any abuse of 

discretion by the trial court in finding that the best interests of the children are best served 

through adoption by the appellees. The factors set forth in R.C. 3107.161(B), which were 

thoroughly discussed by the trial court in its October 31, 2023 Judgment Entry, 

overwhelmingly favor appellees’ adoption of the children. 

CONCLUSION

{¶22} Based upon the foregoing, we find that the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion when it granted the appellees’ petitions for adoption of D.M.B-M. and D.L.B-M. 

Accordingly, the appellant’s sole assignment of error is overruled, and the decision of the 

Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division is affirmed. 

By: Baldwin, J.

Delaney, P.J. and

Hoffman, J. concur.