[Cite as In re Adoption of F.M.W., 2026-Ohio-2309.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION : OF F.M.W., A MINOR CHILD : C.A. No. 30732 : : Trial Court Case No. 2025 ADP 00093 : : (Appeal from Common Pleas Court- : Probate Division) : : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY & : OPINION
...........
Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on June 18, 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
serve notice of this judgment upon all parties and make a note in the docket of the service.
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,
ROBERT G. HANSEMAN, JUDGE
TUCKER, J., and EPLEY, J., concur. OPINION MONTGOMERY C.A. No. 30732
HOLLY M. SIMPSON, Attorney for Appellant JAMES C. STATON, Attorney for Appellee
HANSEMAN, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant-Father (“Father”) appeals from a judgment of the Montgomery County
Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, that concluded that his consent to the adoption
of his biological child F.M.W. by maternal grandmother was not required. For the following
reasons, the probate court’s judgment is affirmed.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} F.M.W. was born in 2017. Father is the biological father of F.M.W., and he
signed the birth certificate. In September 2024, F.M.W.’s maternal grandmother
(“Grandmother”) filed for legal custody of F.M.W. in the Montgomery County Common Pleas
Court, Juvenile Division. At the time of Grandmother’s filing, F.M.W. was living with
Grandmother and Father was incarcerated. The juvenile court granted Grandmother legal
custody of F.M.W. on January 17, 2025.
{¶ 3} Later, on July 3, 2025, Grandmother filed a petition to adopt F.M.W. in the
probate court. When Grandmother filed the petition, F.M.W.’s biological mother consented
to the adoption. The probate court set a hearing on Grandmother’s adoption petition for
December 5, 2025, and sent Father the notice of hearing. Father was served by certified
mail at the state prison facility where he was incarcerated, and a return receipt was filed in
the probate court on July 16, 2025. After Father was served, he did not file an objection to
the adoption. Due to his incarceration, Father failed to attend the hearing on December 5,
2025.
2 {¶ 4} At the hearing, the court’s assessor testified that Grandmother maintained a
stable, loving home and that it was in F.M.W.’s best interests to be adopted by Grandmother.
The assessor’s report indicated that F.M.W.’s mother was unstable with mental health
issues, and Father was “in and out of jail.” The probate court found that F.M.W.’s mother
consented to the adoption and that because Father had failed to object after being served,
his consent was not required. The probate court granted a final decree of adoption on
December 5, 2025.
{¶ 5} After receiving the final decree of adoption, Father filed a handwritten letter in
the probate court on December 24, 2025, objecting to the adoption. Father then filed the
instant appeal on January 5, 2026. In his assignment of error, Father claims the probate
court erred when it found that his consent to the adoption was unnecessary.
II. Law and Discussion
{¶ 6} The law recognizes that “the right of a natural parent to the care and custody of
his children is one of the most precious and fundamental in law.” In re Adoption of Masa,
23 Ohio St.3d 163, 165 (1986), citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982), and In
re Baby Girl Baxter (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 229, 235 (Celebrezze, C.J., concurring). “Adoption
terminates those fundamental rights.” Id., citing R.C. 3107.15(A)(1).
{¶ 7} In Ohio, certain people and entities must consent to adoption. R.C. 3107.06.
These people include the mother, father, putative father, and other parent who
acknowledged paternity of the child, among others. Id. However, exceptions to the consent
requirement exist. R.C. 3107.07. Under R.C. 3107.07(I), except as provided in
R.C. 3107.07(F) and (G), consent to an adoption is not required from a person whose
consent is required who is given notice of the adoption petition in accordance with
R.C. 3107.11(A)(1) and who fails to comply with the requirements described in
3 R.C. 3107.11(B), which set forth the procedures to object to an adoption. To trigger the
consent exception of R.C. 3107.07(I), the notice provided to the recipient must inform the
person that the person is required to file an objection to the adoption petition within 14 or
28 days, as applicable, and appear at the hearing on the petition. R.C. 3107.11(B).
{¶ 8} The notice requirements of R.C. 3107.11(B) state:
[T]he clerk of courts shall send a notice to that parent with the following
language in boldface type and in all capital letters:
“A FINAL DECREE OF ADOPTION, IF GRANTED, WILL TERMINATE
YOUR PARENTAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES, INCLUDING THE
RIGHT TO CONTACT THE MINOR. ALL LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS
BETWEEN THE MINOR AND YOU AND YOUR RELATIVES WILL
TERMINATE, SO THAT THE MINOR IS A STRANGER TO YOU AND YOUR
RELATIVES FOR ALL PURPOSES, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DIVISION
(A)(1)(b) OF SECTION 3107.15 OF THE REVISED CODE.
IF YOU OBJECT TO THE ADOPTION, AND THE MINOR WAS LESS
THAN ONE YEAR OF AGE AT THE TIME THE PETITION FOR ADOPTION
WAS FILED, YOU MUST DO BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING:
(1) FILE A WRITTEN OBJECTION WITH THE COURT WITHIN
FOURTEEN DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF THE
FILING OF THE PETITION AND OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING.
(2) APPEAR AT THE HEARING.
IF YOU OBJECT TO THE ADOPTION, AND THE MINOR WAS ONE
YEAR OF AGE OR OLDER AT THE TIME THE PETITION FOR ADOPTION
4 (1) FILE A WRITTEN OBJECTION WITH THE COURT WITHIN
TWENTY-EIGHT DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF
THE FILING OF THE PETITION AND OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF
HEARING. FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, THE COURT MAY EXTEND THE
TIME IN WHICH A WRITTEN OBJECTION MAY BE FILED.
{¶ 9} Service of the notice is governed by Civ.R. 73(E)(3). The rule permits service
via United States certified or express mail return receipt requested, or by a commercial
carrier service utilizing any form of delivery requiring a signed receipt. Id.
{¶ 10} Father contends that the probate court erred in finding that his consent was
not required. However, “[to] preserve his right to withhold consent to the child’s adoption and
avoid a finding that the requirement of his consent shall be excused, a putative father who
has signed the birth certificate of a child must file a written objection to the adoption with the
court . . . .” In re Adoption of Greer, 70 Ohio St.3d 293 (1994), paragraph three of the
syllabus. Biological parents of a minor must also file written objections to the adoption with
the court to preserve the right to contest the adoption of the minor. In re Adoption of K.W.,
2024-Ohio-1818 (5th Dist.). “[C]onsent to adoption is not required of a parent who fails to
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as In re Adoption of F.M.W., 2026-Ohio-2309.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION : OF F.M.W., A MINOR CHILD : C.A. No. 30732 : : Trial Court Case No. 2025 ADP 00093 : : (Appeal from Common Pleas Court- : Probate Division) : : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY & : OPINION
...........
Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on June 18, 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
serve notice of this judgment upon all parties and make a note in the docket of the service.
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,
ROBERT G. HANSEMAN, JUDGE
TUCKER, J., and EPLEY, J., concur. OPINION MONTGOMERY C.A. No. 30732
HOLLY M. SIMPSON, Attorney for Appellant JAMES C. STATON, Attorney for Appellee
HANSEMAN, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant-Father (“Father”) appeals from a judgment of the Montgomery County
Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, that concluded that his consent to the adoption
of his biological child F.M.W. by maternal grandmother was not required. For the following
reasons, the probate court’s judgment is affirmed.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} F.M.W. was born in 2017. Father is the biological father of F.M.W., and he
signed the birth certificate. In September 2024, F.M.W.’s maternal grandmother
(“Grandmother”) filed for legal custody of F.M.W. in the Montgomery County Common Pleas
Court, Juvenile Division. At the time of Grandmother’s filing, F.M.W. was living with
Grandmother and Father was incarcerated. The juvenile court granted Grandmother legal
custody of F.M.W. on January 17, 2025.
{¶ 3} Later, on July 3, 2025, Grandmother filed a petition to adopt F.M.W. in the
probate court. When Grandmother filed the petition, F.M.W.’s biological mother consented
to the adoption. The probate court set a hearing on Grandmother’s adoption petition for
December 5, 2025, and sent Father the notice of hearing. Father was served by certified
mail at the state prison facility where he was incarcerated, and a return receipt was filed in
the probate court on July 16, 2025. After Father was served, he did not file an objection to
the adoption. Due to his incarceration, Father failed to attend the hearing on December 5,
2025.
2 {¶ 4} At the hearing, the court’s assessor testified that Grandmother maintained a
stable, loving home and that it was in F.M.W.’s best interests to be adopted by Grandmother.
The assessor’s report indicated that F.M.W.’s mother was unstable with mental health
issues, and Father was “in and out of jail.” The probate court found that F.M.W.’s mother
consented to the adoption and that because Father had failed to object after being served,
his consent was not required. The probate court granted a final decree of adoption on
December 5, 2025.
{¶ 5} After receiving the final decree of adoption, Father filed a handwritten letter in
the probate court on December 24, 2025, objecting to the adoption. Father then filed the
instant appeal on January 5, 2026. In his assignment of error, Father claims the probate
court erred when it found that his consent to the adoption was unnecessary.
II. Law and Discussion
{¶ 6} The law recognizes that “the right of a natural parent to the care and custody of
his children is one of the most precious and fundamental in law.” In re Adoption of Masa,
23 Ohio St.3d 163, 165 (1986), citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982), and In
re Baby Girl Baxter (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 229, 235 (Celebrezze, C.J., concurring). “Adoption
terminates those fundamental rights.” Id., citing R.C. 3107.15(A)(1).
{¶ 7} In Ohio, certain people and entities must consent to adoption. R.C. 3107.06.
These people include the mother, father, putative father, and other parent who
acknowledged paternity of the child, among others. Id. However, exceptions to the consent
requirement exist. R.C. 3107.07. Under R.C. 3107.07(I), except as provided in
R.C. 3107.07(F) and (G), consent to an adoption is not required from a person whose
consent is required who is given notice of the adoption petition in accordance with
R.C. 3107.11(A)(1) and who fails to comply with the requirements described in
3 R.C. 3107.11(B), which set forth the procedures to object to an adoption. To trigger the
consent exception of R.C. 3107.07(I), the notice provided to the recipient must inform the
person that the person is required to file an objection to the adoption petition within 14 or
28 days, as applicable, and appear at the hearing on the petition. R.C. 3107.11(B).
{¶ 8} The notice requirements of R.C. 3107.11(B) state:
[T]he clerk of courts shall send a notice to that parent with the following
language in boldface type and in all capital letters:
“A FINAL DECREE OF ADOPTION, IF GRANTED, WILL TERMINATE
YOUR PARENTAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES, INCLUDING THE
RIGHT TO CONTACT THE MINOR. ALL LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS
BETWEEN THE MINOR AND YOU AND YOUR RELATIVES WILL
TERMINATE, SO THAT THE MINOR IS A STRANGER TO YOU AND YOUR
RELATIVES FOR ALL PURPOSES, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DIVISION
(A)(1)(b) OF SECTION 3107.15 OF THE REVISED CODE.
IF YOU OBJECT TO THE ADOPTION, AND THE MINOR WAS LESS
THAN ONE YEAR OF AGE AT THE TIME THE PETITION FOR ADOPTION
WAS FILED, YOU MUST DO BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING:
(1) FILE A WRITTEN OBJECTION WITH THE COURT WITHIN
FOURTEEN DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF THE
FILING OF THE PETITION AND OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING.
(2) APPEAR AT THE HEARING.
IF YOU OBJECT TO THE ADOPTION, AND THE MINOR WAS ONE
YEAR OF AGE OR OLDER AT THE TIME THE PETITION FOR ADOPTION
4 (1) FILE A WRITTEN OBJECTION WITH THE COURT WITHIN
TWENTY-EIGHT DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF
THE FILING OF THE PETITION AND OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF
HEARING. FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, THE COURT MAY EXTEND THE
TIME IN WHICH A WRITTEN OBJECTION MAY BE FILED.
{¶ 9} Service of the notice is governed by Civ.R. 73(E)(3). The rule permits service
via United States certified or express mail return receipt requested, or by a commercial
carrier service utilizing any form of delivery requiring a signed receipt. Id.
{¶ 10} Father contends that the probate court erred in finding that his consent was
not required. However, “[to] preserve his right to withhold consent to the child’s adoption and
avoid a finding that the requirement of his consent shall be excused, a putative father who
has signed the birth certificate of a child must file a written objection to the adoption with the
court . . . .” In re Adoption of Greer, 70 Ohio St.3d 293 (1994), paragraph three of the
syllabus. Biological parents of a minor must also file written objections to the adoption with
the court to preserve the right to contest the adoption of the minor. In re Adoption of K.W.,
2024-Ohio-1818 (5th Dist.). “[C]onsent to adoption is not required of a parent who fails to
file an objection to the adoption petition after proof of service of notice is filed with the trial
court.” In re P.J., 2024-Ohio-5975, ¶ 16 (6th Dist.), quoting In re Adoption of M.L., 2021-
Ohio-2805, ¶ 19 (3d Dist.) (biological father’s consent not required because he did not file
an objection within the deadline).
{¶ 11} We have previously upheld a probate court’s determination that parental
consent is not required when a parent fails to file timely objections to an adoption after being
served with the notice of adoption. In re Adoption of E.G.B., 2025-Ohio-3005 (2d Dist.).
5 Numerous other Ohio appellate courts also have held that, regardless of a status as “putative
father” or “biological parent,” the parent or person served with notice must file written
objections to the adoption and the failure to do so renders the person’s consent
unnecessary. See In re Adoption of K.W., 2024-Ohio-1818, ¶ 30 (5th Dist.) (mother’s
consent to adoption not required because she did not timely file objection); In re G.W.K.,
2022-Ohio-2620, ¶ 13 (9th Dist.) (R.C. 3107.07(K) “obviates the consent requirement where
a parent has failed to file an objection to the adoption petition after proof of service of the
petition and notice of hearing” 1 ); In re M.A.S., 2020-Ohio-3603, ¶ 15 (12th Dist.)
(incarcerated father’s consent was not required for grandparents to adopt minor because
father failed to file objections after being served the notice of adoption); In re A.N., 2013-
Ohio-3871, ¶ 38 (3d Dist.) (“[a]nything short of timely filing objections results in consent no
longer being required.”).
{¶ 12} Father received the mandatory notice of the hearing on the petition for
adoption from the probate court, which instructed:
A FINAL DECREE OF ADOPTION, IF GRANTED, WILL TERMINATE
...
1. The statute is now renumbered as R.C. 3107.07(I).
6 IF YOU OBJECT TO THE ADOPTION, AND THE MINOR WAS ONE
A FINAL DECREE OF ADOPTION MAY BE ENTERED IF YOU FAIL
TO FILE A WRITTEN OBJECTION ON TIME AND APPEAR AT THE
HEARING.
RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY: YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO BE
REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY. IF YOU ARE INDIGENT AND UNABLE
TO EMPLOY AN ATTORNEY, YOU ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE AN
ATTORNEY PROVIDED FOR YOU PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 120 OF THE
REVISED CODE.
YOU MUST CONTACT THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC
DEFENDER, INTAKE SPECIALIST (information below), IF YOU WANT AN
ATTORNEY TO BE APPOINTED FOR YOU:
THE COURT SHALL CONSIDER A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR AN
ATTORNEY OR A NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FILED BY AN ATTORNEY
ON YOUR BEHALF, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ABOVEMENTIONED
7 TIME FRAMES, AS GROUNDS FOR AN EXTENSION TO FILE WRITTEN
OBJECTIONS.
Notice of Hearing on Petition for Adoption (July 3, 2025).
{¶ 13} The statutory notice of the petition that Father received complies with
R.C. 3107.11(B). Father was personally served around July 16, 2025, while he was
incarcerated. But Father did not file an objection or write a letter to the probate court. Under
R.C. 3107.07(I), a parent’s consent to an adoption is not required when the parent fails to
comply with the requirements set forth in a court’s notice of an adoption petition.
{¶ 14} While Father argues that the probate court erred in finding that his consent
was not required, we conclude that Father’s argument lacks merit and overrule his
assignment of error. We agree with the probate court that Father’s failure to file an objection
rendered his consent to adoption unnecessary. As the Supreme Court of Ohio has stated,
“[w]hile strict adherence to the procedural mandates of R.C. 3107.07(B) [requiring a putative
father to file a written objection to an adoption] might appear unfair in a given case, the
state’s interest in facilitating the adoption of children and having the adoption proceeding
completed expeditiously justifies such a rigid application.” In re Zschach, 75 Ohio St.3d 648,
652 (1996).
III. Conclusion
{¶ 15} Having overruled Father’s assignment of error, the judgment of the probate
court is affirmed.
.............
TUCKER, J., and EPLEY, J., concur.