2018 Ohio 4206
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Appellant D.B., paternal aunt, moved for legal custody under R.C. 2151.353(A)(3) of four children (A.B., M.B., J.B., A.P.) previously adjudicated neglected/dependent; LCCS moved for permanent custody.
- Juvenile court denied D.B.’s motion to intervene (finding she never acted in loco parentis) but allowed her to present evidence on her legal-custody motion; court ultimately denied legal custody and D.B. appealed.
- Record: children initially removed from parents’ home for neglect/abuse concerns; children had traumatic behaviors and were placed in foster homes where they showed improvement and stabilization. D.B. temporarily cared for them before foster placement.
- Agency and DFS home-study concerns: inconsistent school attendance/tardiness for children in D.B.’s care, lack of sufficient beds/children’s items, minimal clothing, prior substantiated neglect referral concerning D.B.’s own child, and D.B.’s noncompliance with a supervised-visitation court order for another child (J.M.).
- D.B. testified to long-term involvement with the children, employment working with children with disabilities, financial ability to care for them, but also admitted problems with school attendance, allowing unsupervised contact contrary to court order, and expressed being ‘‘burned out’’ and unwilling to work full-time if granted custody.
- Juvenile court concluded award of legal custody to D.B. would risk regression for the children given their trauma and current stabilization, and that D.B.’s supervision, compliance with court orders, and household adequacy were insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to appeal when nonparent files motion for legal custody but denied intervention | D.B.: her filing of a written R.C. 2151.353(A)(3) motion for legal custody gives her right to appeal denial of that motion despite denial to intervene | LCCS: a nonparty who is not a party to the juvenile action lacks standing to appeal final orders | Court: filing a written statutory motion for legal custody creates an exception giving D.B. standing to appeal the denial of her motion for legal custody (so court addressed merits) |
| Standard of proof and factors for dispositional legal custody to nonparents | D.B.: legal custody motion should be awarded where preponderance supports best interest; court should credit her bonding and caregiving history | LCCS: juvenile court may consider a range of best-interest factors and weigh stabilization in current foster placements; no single statutory checklist applies to nonparent legal-custody motions | Court: juvenile court may consider any appropriate best-interest factors and must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence; appellate review is for abuse of discretion |
| Sufficiency of evidence supporting denial (home adequacy and supervision) | D.B.: home was clean, agency overstated problems; tardiness caused by lack of clothing and agency failures | LCCS: evidence showed inadequate beds, minimal children’s items, chronic school tardiness/absences, prior neglect finding, and disobeyed supervised-visitation order — undermining suitability | Court: substantial evidence supported findings of inadequate household resources, chronic school attendance problems, and noncompliance with visitation order; denial of custody was not an abuse of discretion |
| Risk of regression vs. placement change | D.B.: children had prior relationship with her and she cooperated with LCCS initially; change to her home would be positive | LCCS: children had stabilized in foster care; a move could cause regression given trauma and special needs | Court: preservation of children’s stability and observed improvement in foster placements weighed against changing placement; court reasonably prioritized stability and denied custody |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Winfree v. McDonald, 147 Ohio St.3d 428, 2016-Ohio-8098, 66 N.E.3d 739 (discussing who may appeal as a party aggrieved)
- In re R.V., 2011 Ohio App. LEXIS 1837 (discussed juvenile court discretion to permit participation and limits on appeals when nonparents do not file written custody motions)
- In re Schmidt, 25 Ohio St.3d 331, 496 N.E.2d 952 (grandparents/no common-law right to intervene; loco parentis discussion)
- In re C.R., 108 Ohio St.3d 369, 2006-Ohio-1191, 843 N.E.2d 1188 (observing legal custody is less extreme than permanent custody)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (abuse-of-discretion standard)