See, Nasser-Moghaddassi v. Moghaddassi, 364 S.C. 182, 612 S.E.2d 707 (2005)]. See also, In re Sadiku, 139 Ohio App.3d 263, 743 N.E.2d 507 (2000), holding that the denial of a parent's statutory right to rebut the guardian ad litem's written report violates due process.Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd. v. Parkhill Restaurants, Inc., 1983 OK 77, ¶ 1, 669 P.2d 265; State ex rel. Cartwright v. Dunbar, 1980 OK 15, ¶ 49, 618 P.2d 900.

The admission of rebuttal evidence rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. In re Sadiku , 139 Ohio App.3d 263, 267, 743 N.E.2d 507 (9th Dist.2000).

See, respectively, e.g., In re Sadiku (2000), 139 Ohio App.3d 263, 268 and In re Hayes (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 46, 48. {¶ 58} It is time to put this analogy to rest.

State v. Finnerty (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 104, 108, 543 N.E.2d 1233. See In re Sadiku (2000), 139 Ohio App.3d 263, 267, 743 N.E.2d 507. See also Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d at 219, 5 OBR 481, 450 N.E.2d 1140.

State v. Finnerty (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 104, 108. See In re Sadiku (2000), 139 Ohio App.3d 263, 267. See, also, Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219.

Thus, a trial court's decision regarding the scope of rebuttal testimony will not be reversed unless the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable." In re Sadiku (2000), 139 Ohio App.3d 263, 267. {¶ 16} We find no error by the trial court.

{¶ 8} The proper scope of rebuttal testimony lies within the trial court's sound discretion. In re Sadiku (2000), 139 Ohio App.3d 263, 267, 743 N.E.2d 507. Thus, we will not reverse the trial court's decision absent an abuse of that discretion.

" (Citations omitted.) In re Sadiku (2000), 139 Ohio App.3d 263, 267. {¶ 15} Appellant claims the trial court denied her the opportunity to give rebuttal testimony at trial.

In re Hayes (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 46, 48, quoting In re Smith (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 1. See, also, In re Sadiku (2000), 139 Ohio App.3d 263. An action to terminate parental rights in cases of abuse, neglect, or dependency must balance the liberty interests of parents against the rights of the children to be free from harm from their parents. See Lassiter v. Dept. of Soc. Serv., (1981), 452 U.S. 18, 27. `The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child[ren] does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the [s]tate.'

In re Hayes (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 46, 48, quoting In re Smith (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 1. See, also, In re Sadiku (2000), 139 Ohio App.3d 263. An action to terminate parental rights in cases of abuse, neglect, or dependency must balance the liberty interests of parents against the rights of the children to be free from harm from their parents. See Lassiter v. Dept. of Soc. Serv., (1981), 452 U.S. 18, 27.