Background
C.M.H. had lived with his paternal aunt and uncle since he was about three months old. They became his legal custodians in 2022 and petitioned to adopt him in October 2025. The child’s biological father consented, but Mother objected.
The aunt and uncle alleged that Mother’s consent was unnecessary because she had not provided meaningful and regular maintenance and support during the preceding year. Mother admitted she had never paid court-ordered child support and had not supplied clothes, food, or other necessities, although she periodically babysat. She attributed her failure to her drug addiction, treatment, and incarceration.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District affirmed the probate court’s determination that Mother’s consent was not required. The court held that the record supported a finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mother had failed without justifiable cause to provide meaningful and regular support as required by law or judicial decree during the relevant one-year period.
Mother’s challenge to three uncertified exhibits failed because the probate court expressly found them inadmissible and said it did not consider them. In a bench proceeding, the trial court is presumed to consider only admissible evidence, and testimony from Mother and Aunt independently established the support obligation, Mother’s nonpayment, and the absence of material support. Mother could not identify when her incarceration or treatment occurred during the statutory period, and the probate court reasonably found no justifiable cause.
Key Takeaways
- A parent’s admission that she never paid support or supplied necessities can establish failure to provide meaningful and regular maintenance.
- A probate court may find consent unnecessary when nonpayment was without justifiable cause, even where the parent cites addiction, treatment, and incarceration.
- An appellate court will not presume a bench trial relied on inadmissible exhibits when the trial court excluded them and other admissible evidence supports its ruling.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that Ohio’s consent-to-adoption inquiry focuses on the parent’s actual support obligation, compliance, and any justifiable reason for noncompliance. Personal difficulties may be relevant, but they do not establish justifiable cause without evidence tying them to the relevant statutory period.