2015 Ohio 3154
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Petitioner C.M. filed to adopt K.L.M. on Dec. 3, 2013, alleging nonconsenting parents' consent not required under R.C. 3107.07(A).
- Birthfather was found not to have supported the child for the statutory one‑year period; his consent was held unnecessary by the magistrate.
- Magistrate and probate court found birthmother A.B. provided gifts, meals, school supplies, and spending money during visits in the year before filing and therefore her consent was required.
- Petitioner objected, arguing A.B.’s contributions were de minimis gifts (not support) and some gifts came from A.B.’s family, not A.B.
- The appellate court reviewed R.C. 3107.07(A) and governing Ohio precedent on what constitutes "maintenance and support" and whether de minimis gifts satisfy that duty.
- Court reversed: held A.B.’s contributions were de minimis/nonessential and did not meet the statutory duty of support, so her consent was not required; two assignments of error sustained and remaining assignments rendered moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (C.M.) | Defendant's Argument (A.B.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper interpretation of R.C. 3107.07(A) | R.C. 3107.07(A) requires showing failure to provide maintenance/support as required by law for 1 year before filing; court must apply statutory standard, not an "abandonment" standard | Court should consider gifts, visitation, and minor monetary help as evidence of support/contact | Court: Probate court misapplied law by conflating abandonment/contact with statutory support; reversed magistrate on mother’s consent requirement |
| Whether gifts/meals/spending money constituted "maintenance and support as required by law or judicial decree" | Gifts were de minimis and gratuitous, not statutory support | Gifts/meals and visits show provision of support and more-than-de minimis contact | Court: Items were de minimis/nonessential; did not satisfy statutory duty of support; not support under R.C. 3107.07(A) |
| Whether petitioner had to quantify exact amount of gifts to meet burden | Exact amount irrelevant if gifts are de minimis; no need to establish a definitive figure | Court below demanded definitive quantification to determine whether support was provided | Court: Requiring a definitive dollar amount was unnecessary—nature and essentiality of contributions control; petitioner met burden |
| Consideration of gifts from family members and out‑of‑period facts | Gifts by others or outside the statutory year cannot be imputed to parent's statutory duty | Court below relied on family gifts and facts outside the statutory period to deny adoption without consent | Court: Family gifts and out‑of‑period items are improper to consider; probate court abused discretion in relying on them |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental right to rear children is a fundamental liberty interest)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (heightened protections for termination of parental rights)
- In re Adoption of M.B., 131 Ohio St.3d 186 (2012) (two‑step analysis under R.C. 3107.07(A), de minimis gifts not support)
- In re Adoption of Masa, 23 Ohio St.3d 163 (1986) (burden allocation when nonconsenting parent offers no justification for non‑support)
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (1997) (permanent termination of parental rights requires full procedural/protective safeguards)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (standard for abuse of discretion review)