In re M.M.A. — Mother’s consent was unnecessary because she unjustifiably failed to support her children

Case
In re M.M.A.
Court
Ohio Court of Appeals, Fifth Appellate District, Muskingum County
Judge
David M. Gormley (elected 2025)
Date Decided
August 11, 2026
Docket No.
CT2025-0112, CT2025-0113, CT2025-0114, CT2025-0115
Topics
Adoption, Parental Consent, Child Support, Incarcerated Parents
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Keyle A. is the mother of four children whose father died from a drug overdose in January 2021. The children began living with their paternal grandparents, John and Debra A., approximately four years before the appeal, and the grandparents obtained legal custody in September 2023. In February 2024, Keyle was indicted for her alleged involvement in the father’s death. She later pleaded guilty to felony charges and began serving a prison sentence in May 2024.

The grandparents petitioned to adopt the children on March 3, 2025. Keyle withheld consent. After a hearing, the probate court found that her consent was unnecessary under R.C. 3107.07(A) because, without justifiable cause, she had both failed to provide maintenance and support and had no more than de minimis contact with the children during the relevant one-year period. Keyle appealed both findings.

The Court’s Holding

The Fifth District affirmed. It focused solely on Keyle’s failure to provide maintenance and support because either statutory ground, standing alone, was sufficient to eliminate the need for her consent. Although no child-support order applied, R.C. 3103.03(A) independently required Keyle to support her minor children from her property or labor. She admitted that between March 3, 2024, and March 3, 2025, she sent no money, necessities, or gifts for their support.

The court also upheld the finding that Keyle lacked justifiable cause for providing no support. Her incarceration alone did not excuse the failure, the grandparents were not required to request support, and nothing showed that she was prohibited from sending money. Although she earned only $22 per month in prison and used it for hygiene products, she knew the children’s address yet “failed to send even a single penny.” Because the support ground was sufficient, the court declined to review the alternative finding concerning de minimis contact.

Key Takeaways

  • A parent may have a legal duty to support minor children even when no child-support order exists.
  • Incarceration alone does not constitute justifiable cause for providing no maintenance or support.
  • Either unjustified failure to support or unjustified de minimis contact independently can make parental consent unnecessary under R.C. 3107.07(A).

Why It Matters

The decision underscores that even a parent with very limited prison income must consider making some contribution toward a child’s support. Evidence that a parent earned money, knew where the children lived, and nevertheless contributed nothing can support a finding that the failure was unjustified.

For adoption practitioners, the opinion also illustrates the disjunctive nature of R.C. 3107.07(A): once one consent exception is established by clear and convincing evidence, an appellate court need not resolve disputes concerning an alternative exception.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top