able to drive.) As the trial court noted, Kimberly was able to arrange transportation to pick up her children and to drop them off when she enjoyed unsupervised visitation.
{¶ 7} Kimberly acknowledged that she had not sent her children any cards or letters since her unsupervised visitation terminated in December, 2005. She testified that she tried, five times, to contact her children by telephone, but was unable to talk to them, and was told that she should not call. Brian and Connie denied having told Kimberly that she could not speak to her children by telephone. *Page 4
{¶ 8} After the children were removed from her custody, Kimberly provided no support for them, either in money or in kind. Once the children were placed with their father, there was no court order requiring Kimberly to pay any child support.
{¶ 9} This petition to adopt the children was filed by Connie on February 15, 2007. The trial court bifurcated the issues of: (1) whether Kimberly's consent to the adoption was required; and (2) whether the adoption of the children by Connie was in their best interests. A hearing on the consent issue was held, and the trial court determined that Kimberly's consent to the adoption was not required, because she had failed, without justifiable cause, either to communicate with the children, or to provide support for them, during the one year preceding the filing of the adoption petition.
{¶ 10} Later, the trial court held a hearing on the issue of the best interests of the children. The trial court found that the adoption was in the best interests of the children, and entered an order approving the adoption. From this order, Kimberly appeals.
II {¶ 11} Kimberly's First, Second, Third, and Fourth assignments of error are, in pertinent part, as follows:
{¶ 12} "IT IS ERROR TO DETERMINE THAT THERE WAS NO SIGNIFICANT INTERFERENCE BY CUSTODIAL FATHER WITH COMMUNICATION BETWEEN NON-CUSTODIAL MOTHER AND CHILDREN:. . . .
{¶ 13} "IT IS ERROR TO DETERMINE THAT THERE WAS NO SIGNIFICANT DISCOURAGEMENT BY CUSTODIAL FATHER OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN NON-CUSTODIAL MOTHER AND CHILDREN:. . . . *Page 5
{¶ 14} "IT IS ERROR TO FIND A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN NON-CUSTODIAL MOTHER AND HER FOUR CHILDREN FOR FOURTEEN MONTHS WHERE MIDWAY IN THAT PERIOD THE MOTHER HAS ASKED THAT THE CASE IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY JUVENILE COURT WHICH CONTINUED OPEN THROUGH THE EARLY MONTHS OF THE PERIOD BE TRANSFERRED TO GREENE COUNTY WHERE THE CHILDREN RESIDE AND WHERE NON-CUSTODIAL MOTHER SUBMITTED A PRO SE MOTION FOR UNSUPERVISED VISITATION, WITH A HEARING CONDUCTED (THEN CONTINUED) IN THE TENTH MONTH OF THE FOURTEENTH [sic] MONTH PERIOD.
{¶ 15} "IT IS ERROR TO FIND THAT THE PARTY STEPMOTHER PETITIONING FOR ADOPTION HAS PROVEN BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE NATURAL MOTHER FAILED TO COMMUNICATE FOR A FOURTEEN MONTH PERIOD AND THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFIABLE CAUSE WHERE THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT PETITIONER WAS ROUTINELY REFERRED TO AS MOMMY OR MOTHER BY THE