In re D.N.O., 2013 Ohio 601

D.N.O. was born in September 2003 out of wedlock; Mother later married Ostrowski in 2008 and they lived with the child.
Father was incarcerated in 2005 and served three years; he had limited contact with the child.
Ostrowski filed a petition for adoption on January 26, 2012 seeking to adopt D.N.O. and asserting Father’s consent was not required.
Father contested the adoption on April 9, 2012, arguing lack of contact and support was justified due to interference by Mother.
The trial court denied Ostrowski’s summary-judgment motion; a November 19, 2012 evidentiary hearing followed on whether Father’s consent was required.
The probate court ultimately held Father’s consent was required; the adoption petition proceeded to trial and the appellate court affirmed the decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Father's consent is required for the adoption	Ostrowski argues Father failed to communicate or support for a year, with no justifiable cause.	Father contends any absence of contact or support was justified by Mother’s interference.	Father's consent required; evidence supported lack of justifiable cause.
Whether the court properly denied Ostrowski’s motion to strike and applied statutes correctly	Ostrowski asserts procedural errors and statutory deadlines were violated by delay.	Father’s actions and notices were timely; strike motion was untimely.	Motion to strike overruled; trial record upheld the decision.
Whether the trial court correctly concluded that the consent requirement applied under R.C. 3107.07(A)	Consent should be excused only if statutory elements met by clear and convincing evidence.	Court properly weighed evidence showing lack of justifiable cause for failure to communicate or support.	Consent was required; trial court’s ruling affirmed.

In re: Kuhlmann, 99 Ohio App.3d 44 (1st Dist. 1994) (strict adherence to statutory consent requirements in adoption matters)
In re: Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (1985) (burden on petitioner; justifiable cause for failure to communicate must be proven by clear and convincing evidence)
In re: Bovett, 33 Ohio St.3d 102 (1987) (trial court’s discretion; justification for failure to provide support or communicate is reviewed for abuse of discretion)
In re: Masa, 23 Ohio St.3d 163 (1985) (clear and convincing standard; justifiable cause considerations for support)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (standard for reviewing whether evidence supports the trial court’s findings)
In re: Walters, 112 Ohio St.3d 315 (2007) (consent exceptions; best interests and statutory compliance in adoption proceedings)
In re: M.B., 131 Ohio St.3d 186 (2012) (clarifies scope of justifiable cause and adoption under R.C. 3107.07(A))