In re Adoption of M.B.

949 N.E.2d 42, 128 Ohio St. 3d 1555
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in In re Adoption of M.B.. Read the opinion of the Court — 131 Ohio St. 3d 186
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided June 22, 2011·No. 2011-0831·Published

Opinion

Summit App. No. 25304, 2011-Ohio-1215. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issues stated in the court of appeals’ Journal Entry filed April 18, 2011:

“1. When a biological parent fails to provide any court ordered child support for one year, do small monetary gifts paid directly to the child constitute the provision of “maintenance and support of the minor as required by law or judicial decree” for purposes of R.C. 3107.07(A)?
“2. When reviewing a probate court’s decision regarding whether or not a biological parent’s [1556]*1556financial contribution constitutes “maintenance and support of the minor as required by law or judicial decree” for purposes of R.C. 3107.07(A), is the standard of review de novo or whether the decision is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence?”
Cupp, J., would recognize the first issue only.

The conflict case as to the fust issue is In re Adoption of McCarthy (Jan. 17, 1992), Lucas App. No. L-91-199.

The conflict case as to the second issue is In re Adoption of Kat P., Fairfield App. Nos. 09CA10 and 09CA11, 2009-Ohio-3852.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In re Adoption of M.B., 949 N.E.2d 42, 128 Ohio St. 3d 1555 (Ohio 2011).

949 N.E.2d 42 (In re Adoption of M.B.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.