In re Adoption of B.I., 101 N.E.3d 1171

Stepfather filed to adopt B.I. (with mother's consent) and alleged the natural father’s consent was unnecessary under R.C. 3107.07(A) because the father “failed without justifiable cause” to provide maintenance and support during the year before the petition.
Father had been incarcerated since 2009; a 2010 juvenile-court order set his child-support obligation and arrearage at zero.
During the relevant one-year period father received modest prison pay ($18/month) and had ~$5,152 deposited into his prison account; he spent ~$4,681.62 at the commissary and made no payments or offers of support for B.I.
Magistrate found father failed to provide maintenance and support and excused consent; trial court sustained father’s objections, held the zero support order precluded finding failure under R.C. 3107.07(A), and dismissed the adoption petition. Stepfather appealed.
The probate appellate panel considered whether a court-ordered zero child-support obligation means a parent cannot be found to have “failed without justifiable cause” to provide maintenance and support under R.C. 3107.07(A).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a parent with a judicially-ordered zero child-support obligation can be found to have “failed without justifiable cause” to provide maintenance and support under R.C. 3107.07(A)	Stepfather: The statutory phrase “required by law or judicial decree” includes a separate statutory/common-law duty to support (not extinguished by a zero order), so father’s failure to pay supports waiver of consent	Father: A valid judicial decree setting support at zero relieves him of any duty to provide support “required by law or judicial decree,” so he did not fail to provide support	Court: A judicial order of zero support supersedes other duties; where a court orders zero support, the parent cannot be found to have failed to provide maintenance and support under R.C. 3107.07(A); judgment affirmed

In re Adoption of Bovett, 33 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1987) (sets burden-shifting framework for proving failure to support under R.C. 3107.07(A))
In re Adoption of M.B., 131 Ohio St.3d 186 (Ohio 2012) (two-step analysis under R.C. 3107.07(A): determine failure to support, then assess justifiable cause)
Meyer v. Meyer, 17 Ohio St.3d 222 (Ohio 1985) (domestic-relations child-support statute supersedes common-law duty to support)
Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 116 Ohio St.3d 468 (Ohio 2007) (courts must apply statutes as written; legislative branch sets public policy)
In re Adoption of Kuhlmann, 99 Ohio App.3d 44 (1st Dist. 1995) (distinguishes absence of a support order from a judicial order setting support at zero)
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Hauck, 148 Ohio St.3d 203 (Ohio 2016) (judgments generally are not subject to collateral attack in separate proceedings)