2019 Ohio 3621
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Father and Mother are parents of three minor children; Father is Grandmother's son. Custody was awarded to a relative (Custodian) in October 2014; Father retained supervised parenting time.
- A civil protection order (CPO) in June 2016 limited Father's parenting time to supervised visitation at Grandmother's home every Saturday from 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.; the juvenile court later adopted that schedule.
- Grandmother travels ~45 minutes to pick the children up at the Washington Court House police station each Saturday at 1:00 p.m., takes them to her home for visits with Father, and returns them by 6:00 p.m.
- Because Father faced likely incarceration in early 2019, Grandmother moved (Oct. 2018) for grandparent visitation asking to "exercise Father's parenting time," and orally requested every-other-weekend custody from Friday 6:00 p.m. to Sunday 6:00 p.m. at the hearing.
- The juvenile court granted Grandmother the same visitation and conditions as Father (Saturday 1:00–6:00 p.m.). Grandmother appealed, arguing the court failed to account for travel time and ignored Custodian's prior withholding of the children.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court failed to account for travel time and the children’s best interests when setting Grandmother’s visitation | Grandmother: court overlooked travel time and thus did not protect the children’s best interest | Custodian: court considered geography, distance, and other R.C. 3109.051(D) factors and fashioned reasonable conditions | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; court considered statutory factors including location and travel time and reasonably granted Saturday 1:00–6:00 p.m. visitation |
| Whether the court erred by ignoring Custodian’s prior alleged violations of parenting time | Grandmother: Custodian withheld the children on multiple occasions and the court ignored this when setting visitation | Custodian: there were no pending motions about past violations; Grandmother lacks standing to appeal another party’s prior violations | Court affirmed: Grandmother lacked standing to challenge Custodian’s prior violations; court noted it considered Custodian’s past conduct in its entry |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (defines abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Anderson v. Anderson, 147 Ohio App.3d 513 (7th Dist. 2002) (trial court may limit/time/place/conditions of visitation)