[Cite as In re Adoption of C.M.H., 2026-Ohio-3265.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION :
OF : C.A. No. 30813 C.M.H., A MINOR :
: Trial Court Case No. 2025 ADP 00135
:
: (Appeal from Common Pleas Court: Probate Division)
:
: FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY &
: OPINION
Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on August 21, 2026, the judgment of
the trial court is affirmed.
Costs to be paid as stated in App.R. 24.
Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), the clerk of the court of appeals shall immediately
send a copy of the court’s ruling to each party and note that action on the docket.
Additionally, pursuant to App.R. 27, the clerk of the court of appeals shall send a certified
copy of this judgment, which constitutes a mandate, to the clerk of the trial court and note
the service on the appellate docket.
For the court,
CHRISTOPHER B. EPLEY, JUDGE
HUFFMAN, J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur.
OPINION
MONTGOMERY C.A. No. 30813
IRENE P. WONG, Attorney for Appellant
JAMES D. MILLER II, Attorney for Appellees T.H. and D.H.
EPLEY, J.
{¶ 1} Mother appeals from the judgment of the Montgomery County Common Pleas
Court, Probate Division, finding that her consent was not necessary to proceed with the
adoption of her biological son, C.M.H., by his paternal aunt and uncle (“Aunt” and “Uncle”).
Mother asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by making this determination,
because it erroneously relied on exhibits that were ultimately deemed inadmissible. For the
following reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} C.M.H. was born on March 15, 2021. From the time C.M.H. was approximately
three months old, he has lived with Aunt and Uncle. They were named C.M.H.’s legal
custodians on September 12, 2022. On October 10, 2025, Aunt and Uncle filed a petition to
formally adopt C.M.H., and Mother objected. C.M.H.’s biological father, Aunt’s brother,
consented to the adoption.
{¶ 3} The trial court held a hearing on March 10, 2026, regarding whether Mother’s
consent was necessary to proceed with the adoption process. Aunt and Uncle asserted that
Mother’s consent was not necessary, because she had not provided “meaningful and regular
maintenance and support of [C.M.H.] as required by law or judicial decree for a period of
one year immediately preceding the filing of the adoption petition.” During the hearing, Aunt
testified that Mother babysat for C.M.H. periodically when she was not incarcerated or in a
drug treatment program. However, Mother did not contribute financially to C.M.H.’s care, nor
2
did she provide clothes, food, or other necessities. Mother also testified during the hearing
and admitted that although she was aware of an order requiring her to pay child support,
she had not done so. Additionally, Mother expressed that she had tried to be there for C.M.H.
as much as she could, and she acknowledged that Aunt and Uncle had provided C.M.H.
with “everything he needs.”
{¶ 4} During the hearing, Aunt and Uncle submitted the following three exhibits:
(1) the September 12, 2022 order granting Aunt and Uncle custody of C.M.H., (2) an
administrative adjustment order filed on October 23, 2024, and (3) a payment history report
from the Montgomery County Child Support Enforcement Agency. Mother objected to the
admission of these exhibits on the basis that they were not certified copies. The trial court
noted the objection and stated that the exhibits would be admitted, “subject to a little bit of
research.”
{¶ 5} The trial court issued its decision on March 13, 2026, finding that the exhibits at
issue were inadmissible because they were not certified copies. Notwithstanding that ruling,
the trial court found that Mother’s consent to the adoption was not required, because “Mother
[had] failed without justifiable cause to provide meaningful and regular maintenance and
support as required by law or judicial decree for a period of one year immediately preceding
the filing of the adoption petition on October 10, 2025.”
{¶ 6} Mother now appeals, raising one assignment of error.
II. Appellate Review
{¶ 7} In her assignment of error, Mother asserts that the trial court abused its
discretion by determining that her consent was not required for the adoption of C.M.H.
Mother contends that the trial court based its determination on testimony regarding the
exhibits, which were ultimately deemed inadmissible. She further asserts that Aunt and
3
Uncle failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that she did not provide meaningful
and regular support for C.M.H., without justifiable cause, for the year preceding the filing of
the adoption petition.
A. Consideration of Inadmissible Evidence
{¶ 8} Mother first asserts that the trial court’s decision was based on inadmissible
evidence. Specifically, during the hearing on this matter, Aunt and Uncle’s attorney
presented copies of the order granting them legal custody of C.M.H., an administrative
adjustment order, and a payment history report from the Montgomery County Child Support
Enforcement Agency. None of the exhibits, however, were certified copies, as required by
Evid.R. 901(A) for authentication and admission as evidence. The trial court stated in its
decision that it agreed with Mother that the exhibits were not admissible and that it did not
consider them when reaching its final determination.
{¶ 9} When a trial court conducts a bench trial, sitting as the trier of fact, it is presumed
that the court has considered only admissible evidence unless the record indicates
otherwise. State v. Adkins, 2025-Ohio-2833, ¶ 17 (4th Dist.). Therefore, “‘[i]n a bench trial,
the court is presumed to know and follow the law unless the record affirmatively
demonstrates to the contrary.’” (Brackets added in Adkins.) Id., quoting State v. Gilcrease,
2020-Ohio-487, ¶ 52 (8th Dist.).
{¶ 10} In the present case, not only was there a presumption that the trial court would
consider only admissible evidence, but the trial court particularly stated that the exhibits at
issue were inadmissible and that it would not consider them. Mother failed to offer any
evidence or testimony to undermine the presumption. Moreover, both Mother and Aunt
testified regarding the existence of a support order, whether Mother complied with the order,
and whether Mother’s failure to comply with the order constituted a justifiable cause for
4
failure to provide support to C.M.H. Therefore, there is nothing in the record before us to
suggest that the trial court based its decision on inadmissible evidence.
B. Consent to Adoption Under R.C. 3107.07(A)
{¶ 11} In addition, Mother argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it
determined that her consent was not required for Aunt and Uncle to proceed with the
adoption of C.M.H. We disagree.
{¶ 12} It has been well established that a parent has a fundamental right to care for
and have custody of her child and that those rights are terminated when a child is adopted.
In re F.D.H., 2023-Ohio-730, ¶ 6 (2d Dist.). However, R.C. 3107.07(A) provides that consent
to adoption is not required of a parent of a minor child “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
meaningful and regular maintenance and support of the minor as required by law or judicial
decree for a period of one year immediately preceding the filing of the adoption petition.”
{¶ 13} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that it is within the probate court’s
discretion to determine whether a biological parent has provided support for his or her minor
child as contemplated by R.C. 3107.07(A), and that judgment will not be disturbed absent
an abuse of discretion. In re Adoption of M.B., 2012-Ohio-236, ¶ 21. To constitute an abuse
of discretion, a probate court’s action must be arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable.
In re F.D.H. at ¶ 7.
{¶ 14} As to whether a parent has failed to provide for the support and maintenance
of the child, the probate court must use a three-step process. Id. at ¶ 21. First, it must
determine what the law or judicial decree required of the parent during the year preceding
the filing of the adoption petition. In re Adoption of A.K., 2022-Ohio-350, ¶ 14. Next, the court
5
must decide if the parent met his or her obligation under the law or judicial decree. Id. Finally,
if the obligation was not met, the court must determine whether there was a justifiable cause
for that failure. Id.
{¶ 15} There is no dispute that there was a judicial decree in place during the year
leading up to the adoption proceedings that required Mother to pay child support for C.M.H.
Both Mother’s and Aunt’s testimony established that element. Further, Mother admitted
during her testimony that she had never paid any child support to Aunt and Uncle or provided
any other supplies or necessities for C.M.H. and therefore had not met her obligation under
the order.
{¶ 16} With respect to whether there was justifiable cause for Mother’s failure to
comply with the order, she admitted that she had not provided support for C.M.H. because
“things got messed up because [she] had a drug problem[,]” and “[she] let that kind of take
over everything.” Although Mother testified that she had been in and out of rehab and jail,
she could not specify the exact dates she claims to have been in rehab or incarcerated
during the relevant statutory period, nor could she testify with certainty whether it was during
the one year preceding the adoption petition. Considering these facts, the trial court
reasonably determined that there was no justifiable cause for Mother’s failure to provide
support to C.M.H. during the relevant statutory time period.
{¶ 17} Mother also asserts that the trial court failed to consider her maintenance and
support for the full one-year statutory period. She contends that the order for child support
(which was ultimately deemed inadmissible) was filed on October 23, 2024, and the petition
for adoption was filed on October 10, 2025—13 days short of one full year. Mother admitted
during her testimony, though, that she had never paid any child support or provided any
6
material support for C.M.H., either during the year preceding the adoption petition or at any
other point.
{¶ 18} Accordingly, the record before us demonstrates that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion when it determined that Mother’s consent was not required for the
adoption of C.M.H. Not only did Mother fail to comply with the child support order, but she
also admitted that she had never provided financial or material support for C.M.H., even
when she was not in jail or drug treatment. Therefore, the trial court’s determination was not
arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable.
{¶ 19} Mother’s assignment of error is overruled.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 20} The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur.
7