IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF A.L.R.
CASE NO. 2019-G-0210
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT GEAUGA COUNTY, OHIO
2019-Ohio-4320
[Cite as In re Adoption of A.L.R., 2019-Ohio-4320.]
Appeal from the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, Case No. 2018 PA 000524.
Judgment: Affirmed.
Brian L. Bly, Ibold & O‘Brien, 401 South Street, Chardon, OH 44024 (For Appellant, Dylan Jones).
Jeffrey T. Orndorff, Jeffrey T. Orndorff Co., L.P.A., 117 South Street, #110, P.O. Box 1137, Chardon, OH 44024 (For Appellees, John Riha and Lorraine Riha).
THOMAS R. WRIGHT, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant, Dylan Jones, appeals the trial court‘s judgment that his consent was not required for appellees, John аnd Lorraine Riha, to adopt his natural daughter, A.L.R.
{¶2} Appellant acknowledges that he failed to provide for A.L.R.‘s maintenance and support during the year before the Rihas filed the adoption petition. He therefore asserts as justifiable cause the absеnce of a child support order and appellees’ failure to
{¶3} Appellant raises one assignment of error:
{¶4} “The trial court erred in disregarding binding casе law from the appellate court, and ruling that the father‘s consent to the adoption of his daughter is not required, based on non-payment of support to the legal custodians, pursuant to
{¶5}
{¶6} “A parent of a minor, when it is alleged in the adoption petition and the court, after proper service of notice and hearing, finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent has failed without justifiable cause to provide morе than de minimis contact with the minor or to provide for the maintenance and suppоrt of the minor as required by law or judicial decree for a period of at least one year immediately preceding either the filing of the adoption petition or thе placement of the minor in the home of the petitioner.” (Emphasis added.).
{¶7} The Rihas’ аdoption petition alleges appellant failed to provide for A.L.R.‘s maintenance and support one year immediately preceding the filing of the adoptiоn petition, and appellant‘s testimony confirms this.
{¶8} In In re Adoption of B.I., 157 Ohio St.3d 29, 2019-Ohio-2450, 131 N.E.3d 28, the Ohio Supreme Court reviewed the vаrious statutory provisions governing a natural parent‘s duty to support his child. In doing so, the B.I. court references
{¶9} ”
{¶10} “* * *
{¶11} “Ohio‘s statutory scheme regarding families and children makes clear that there are two statuses of parental obligation: first, a general obligation of parents to support their children imposed by law in
{¶12} In the absence of a child support order, as in our case, a natural pаrent has an independent obligation to provide support for his child regardless of whether a request is made.
{¶13} In In re J.A.B., 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2013-T-0114, 2014-Ohio-1375, ¶ 45-46, this court held that the father had justifiable cause not to рrovide support when: (1)
{¶14} Appellant lacks justifiable cause for failing to provide support for A.L.R. during thе statutory one-year period. Thus, the trial court correctly held that his consent was not required.
{¶15} Appellant‘s sole assignment is without merit. The judgment of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, is affirmed.
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.,
MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,
concur.