2018 Ohio 4719
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- A.C.C., born July 1, 2016, had significant medical needs (micrognathia, G-tube feeding, therapy) and spent most of her infancy in the care of her maternal grandparents (A.H. and T.H.).
- Mother struggled with heroin and methadone addiction, entered residential treatment (Teen Challenge) in Feb 2017, completed it in Sept 2017, and supported grandparents having custody.
- Father (T.J.B.) has a lengthy criminal history including convictions for domestic violence and violations of protection orders; he served time at a community corrections center and had supervised visitation beginning Jan 2017.
- Maternal grandparents sought legal custody; hearings were held June 2 and Oct 17, 2017 before a magistrate, who awarded them custody and phased parenting time to Father.
- Juvenile court modified visitation (kept supervised parenting time) and expressly found that awarding custody to either parent would be detrimental to A.C.C. and that both parents were unsuitable; Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Father's Argument | Maternal Grandparents' / Court's Position | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court may award custody to nonparents absent a finding that parental custody would be detrimental | Father: Record lacks proof that awarding him custody would be detrimental; court improperly applied a best-interest inquiry instead of unsuitability standard | Court: Required to find by preponderance that parent abandonment, incapacity, contractual relinquishment, or that parental custody would be detrimental; it found parental custody would be detrimental | Court affirmed: evidence supported finding that custody to Father would be detrimental |
| Whether Father is an unsuitable custodian due to violent history and anger issues | Father: He has been rehabilitated, completed classes, sober since Apr 2016, and has improved conduct | Court: Father’s long history of violence, recent domestic violence while mother was pregnant, and angry, threatening texts show ongoing anger/control issues | Court affirmed: Father unsuitable at this time |
| Whether the magistrate erred in parenting-time scheduling and supervisors | Father: Objections to some supervised/unsupervised schedule provisions; grandparents objected to later unsupervised schedule and to paternal grandmother as supervisor | Juvenile court adjusted schedule (kept supervised visits; modified durations) and allowed paternal grandmother to supervise alternate Saturdays | Court affirmed modified supervised visitation order |
| Whether legal custody to grandparents unlawfully terminated parental rights | Father: Awarding legal custody is effectively terminating his parental rights without proper finding | Court/Grandparents: Legal custody does not terminate parental rights; residual parental rights remain and custody can change in future if parent becomes suitable | Court clarified: legal custody awarded, not permanent custody; parental rights not terminated |
Key Cases Cited
- Hockstok v. Hockstok, 98 Ohio St.3d 238 (Ohio 2002) (parents have a fundamental liberty interest in custody protected by due process)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (standards protecting parental liberty interest in custody termination contexts)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (Ohio 1990) (parental liberty interest and standards for interfering with custody)
- In re Perales, 52 Ohio St.2d 89 (Ohio 1977) (court may award custody to nonparent only after finding abandonment, contractual relinquishment, incapacity, or that parental custody would be detrimental)
- In re Dunn, 79 Ohio App.3d 268 (Ohio App. 1992) (unsuitability must be measured by harm to the child, not societal judgment of the parent)
- In re Shaeffer Children, 85 Ohio App.3d 683 (Ohio App. 1993) (parental liberty under state constitution)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (appellate abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1988) (deference to trial court in custody determinations)
- Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (Ohio 1993) (standard for appellate review of discretionary rulings)