Brown v. Heitman
2017 Ohio 4032
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- After mother Tiffany Brown was murdered in 2011, maternal grandparents Lawrence and Jill Brown were granted legal custody and residential care of her sons, Gage and Gavyn. Father Brian Heitman had a serious drug problem and was later found unfit.
- Paternal grandparents Julie Taylor and Daniel Heitman had regularly cared for the boys (weekends and facilitating contact with half-siblings) and sought intervention and court-ordered grandparent visitation in 2014 after custodians reduced weekend visits.
- The juvenile court appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) who recommended against court-ordered visitation; the magistrate nonetheless recommended granting visitation, finding grandparents were a consistent presence and visitation served the boys’ best interests.
- The trial court overruled objections and adopted the magistrate’s decision; it awarded monthly weekend visits, one week each in summer, and holiday time to the paternal grandparents.
- Maternal grandparent Lawrence Brown appealed, raising four assignments of error challenging the court’s de novo review, best-interest analysis, disregard of the GAL recommendation, and allowance of intervention. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lawrence Brown) | Defendant's Argument (Julie & Dan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court failed to perform an independent de novo review of magistrate's decision | Trial court did not independently review objections as required by Civ.R. 53 | Trial court conducted independent review and addressed objections in its entry | Court: No abuse — record and entry show independent review was performed |
| Whether granting grandparent visitation was an abuse of discretion / against manifest weight | Legal custodians’ wishes should receive special weight (Troxel); court should defer to custodians' preference to limit visitation | Visitation meets R.C. 3109.051(D) best-interest factors (consistent grandparent relationship, geography, activities, siblings contact) | Court: No abuse — competent, credible evidence supports best-interest finding and visitation order |
| Whether trial court erred by disregarding GAL recommendation | GAL recommended against visitation; magistrate and court failed to explain departure | GAL’s report is advisory; trial court may weigh GAL credibility and give report less weight | Court: No plain error — trial court may reject GAL and did not commit exceptional error |
| Whether paternal grandparents should have been permitted to intervene | No statute gives unconditional right to intervene as grandparent; intervention was improper | Grandparents had established, frequent relationship with children and intervention parallels custodians’ factual claims | Court: No abuse of discretion — intervention was permissible given grandparents’ established relationship |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parents’ substantive due process interest in raising children requires deference to parental decisions regarding third‑party visitation)
- Inman v. Inman, 101 Ohio App.3d 115 (Ohio App. 1995) (trial court must independently review magistrate/referee reports)
- DeSantis v. Soller, 70 Ohio App.3d 226 (Ohio App. 1990) (same principle on independent review of referee reports)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997) (plain-error doctrine in civil appeals is disfavored and reserved for exceptional circumstances)
- In re Whitaker, 36 Ohio St.3d 213 (Ohio 1988) (grandparents generally have no inherent legal right of access)
- In re Martin, 68 Ohio St.3d 250 (Ohio 1994) (grandparents have no constitutional right of association with grandchildren)
- In re Schmidt, 25 Ohio St.3d 331 (Ohio 1986) (same principle regarding grandparents’ lack of constitutional association right)