In re Adoption of M.B.
131 Ohio St. 3d 186
| Ohio | 2012Background
- M.B. is the biological daughter of Ann R. and Stephen B.; Stephen failed to pay court-ordered child support for Sep 2007–Sep 2008.
- Ann remarried; Thomas (appellant) filed to adopt M.B. in Summit County Probate Court on Sep 12, 2008.
- Stephen contested, arguing Christmas and birthday gifts amounted to maintenance and support.
- Probate court found gifts were de minimis and not maintenance; consent not required.
- Appellate court ( Ninth Dist.) reversed, held gifts constituted support and adoption could proceed without Stephen’s consent; certified conflicts with McCarthy and Kat P.
- Court ultimately reversed the appellate decision and reinstated probate court ruling that gifts were de minimis and not maintenance; adoption could proceed without Stephen’s consent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether de minimis gifts constitute maintenance and support under R.C. 3107.07(A). | Stephen contends gifts amount to maintenance. | Thomas contends gifts may be maintenance and trigger consent. | Gifts are not maintenance; de minimis and not required. |
| What is the proper standard of review for whether payment constitutes maintenance and for whether justifiable cause exists? | Appellate review should be de novo for maintenance issue. | Standard of review should be abuse of discretion for maintenance; justifiable-cause review separate. | Abuse-of-discretion for maintenance; clear-and-convincing for justifiable-cause is a separate standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of Bovett, 33 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1987) (two-step burden of proof; maintenance and justifiable cause standards)
- In re Adoption of Masa, 23 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 1986) (clear and convincing standard for failure to pay)
- In re Adoption of Kat P., 2009-Ohio-3852 (Ohio App. 5th Dist. 2009) (discusses standard of review; manifest weight considerations)