2014 Ohio 164
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Michael Brown (nonparent) and Debra Wyandt (adoptive mother) were long-time business partners and formerly intimate; Michael helped financially and practically with Debra’s adoptions of two daughters from China (2002, 2005) but was not an adoptive parent.
- Michael spent substantial time with the children from 2002 until mid-2008; the children called him “Fubaba” and he participated in childcare, vacations, school/medical decisions, and was briefly named guardian in Debra’s will (later revoked).
- Debra moved the children to Ohio in 2008 and cut ties with Michael; Michael last saw the children in July 2008 and filed for shared custody in March 2011 under R.C. 2151.23 claiming Debra had contractually relinquished sole custody by words and conduct.
- Trial court bifurcated proceedings to decide Michael’s standing (i.e., whether a shared-custody agreement existed). A two-day evidentiary hearing followed, with disputed testimony about the nature and extent of any verbal agreement.
- The trial court found Michael failed to prove by a preponderance that Debra permanently relinquished sole custody; dismissed the shared-custody complaint for lack of standing. Michael appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Debra’s words and conduct created a binding shared-custody agreement with a nonparent | Michael: verbal agreement and long-term conduct showed Debra agreed to raise the children with him and permanently share custody | Debra: although she fostered Michael’s involvement, she never intended to relinquish legal custody; adoptions were single-parent and Michael was not an adoptive parent | Court: No — trial court’s factual finding that no contractual relinquishment occurred is supported by credible evidence; Michael lacks standing to pursue shared custody |
| Whether evidence (financial help, shared parenting tasks, guardian designation, nickname) suffices to prove permanent surrender of custody | Michael: financial contributions to adoptions, caregiving, and being named guardian show intent to share custody permanently | Debra: contributions and joint activities reflected friendship/business partnership and temporary/shared caregiving, with clear limits; no written contract or corroborating testimony of an agreement | Court: These facts were insufficiently persuasive; boundaries and limits weighed against finding an intent to permanently surrender custody |
| Whether nonmarriage and non-adoption by Michael undermines his claim to shared custody | Michael: absence of marriage/adoption is irrelevant if words/conduct created an agreement | Debra: points to single-parent adoptions and lack of any step-parent adoption attempt after divorce | Court: Mentioned nonmarriage/adoption as one factor among many; not dispositive but supported the factual conclusion that no shared custody agreement existed |
| Standard of proof and appellate review | Michael: trial court erred in weighing evidence and should have found agreement | Debra: trial court properly applied preponderance standard and factual discretion | Court: Preponderance standard applies; trial court’s factual determinations are supported by some competent, credible, reliable evidence and are affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Mullen, 129 Ohio St.3d 417 (2011) (Ohio Supreme Court: parent can create shared-custody agreement with a nonparent by words and conduct; factual question of relinquishment)
- In re Bonfield, 97 Ohio St.3d 387 (2002) (parental rights can be voluntarily shared with nonparents; procedural guidance for juvenile court analysis)
- Masitto v. Masitto, 22 Ohio St.3d 63 (1986) (parental relinquishment of custody may be shown by conduct without a written contract)
- In re Perales, 52 Ohio St.2d 89 (1977) (standards for determining parental relinquishment by words and conduct)
- Reynolds v. Goll, 75 Ohio St.3d 121 (1996) (trial courts have broad discretion in custody matters; factual findings upheld if supported by credible evidence)