with absent an abuse of discretion. What specific guidance needs to be given, however, is whether the making of one payment of support during the year or the sending of a Christmas card is enough to frustrate the operation of the statute. * * * “ * * * Until this court meets and decides that issue, inconsistent judgments of trial courts and courts of appeals on the question will continue to prevail.” Id. at 107, 515 N.E.2d at 924. Thus far, the Supreme Court of Ohio has not set forth, as to the “maintenance and support” prong of R.C. 3107.07(A), any specific guidelines to resolve this issue. As a result of this lack of guidance, the reported appellate decisions on this issue show a lack of consistency. See, e.g., Celestino v. Schneider (1992), 84 Ohio App.3d 192, 616 N.E.2d 581 (<HOLDING>); In re Adoption of Anthony (1982), 5 Ohio
holding that natural parents consent for an adoption is required so long as the parent complies with the duty to support for any period during the oneyear preceding the filing of the adoption petition holding that a single partial payment of 36 within the oneyear period prior to the filing of the adoption petition qualified as support and maintenance requiring natural parents consent as prerequisite to adoption holding that single partial payment of 20 within the oneyear period prior to the filing of the adoption petition was de minimis and did not make natural parents consent necessary for the adoption holding that parties not related to the child could not file an adoption petition and later prove the unfitness of the natural parents because the child was not available for adoption as defined in the adoption act parents had to be found unfit before petition could be filed holding prior to adoption of child support guidelines that a credit was discretionary