With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". period prior to the adoption petition. In re Adoption of Masa (1986), 23 Ohio St.3d 163, 23 OBR 330, 492 N.E.2d 140. Once the petitioner has established a failure to either provide support for, or communicate with, the child, the burden of going forward with evidence shifts to the respondent to show some facially justifiable cause for such failure. Bovett, supra, at paragraph two of the syllabus. As the trial court did not address appellant’s alleged failure to communicate with the child, the only issue before this court is whether the trial court erred in finding that appellant failed, without justifiable cause, to provide maintenance and súpport for his child. The trial court’s determination of this issue will not be disturbed on appeal unless this determ 3d 244, 604 N.E.2d 243 (<HOLDING>). However, this court has expressly held that

A: holding that an outofwedlock childs pending claim for retroactive child support was nondischargeable in bankruptcy because a debt for child support arises upon the birth of the child and that the fact that no court had yet ordered the debtor to support the child does not take the debt outside the scope of 11 usc  523a5
B: 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
C: recognizing a district courts continuing jurisdiction over child eustody and child maintenance determinations
D: holding that single payment of 15 upon learning of stepparents intention to adopt the child did not constitute maintenance and support
D.