In re A.M., 97 N.E.3d 1036

Mother (A.R.) voluntarily placed her daughter A.M. with friends L.P. and B.P.; the parties entered an agreement awarding legal custody to L.P./B.P. while Mother retained residual parental rights.
The juvenile court previously found Mother unsuitable based on her contractual relinquishment but did not terminate residual parental rights.
Mother moved twice to modify legal custody; the magistrate bifurcated the latest hearing and required Mother to first prove a change in circumstances before the court would address the child's best interest.
The magistrate and juvenile court denied Mother's motion, concluding she failed to show a consequential change in circumstances, and cancelled the best-interest hearing.
Mother appealed, arguing (1) the bifurcation and threshold change-of-circumstances requirement denied due process and (2) the court erred in finding no change of circumstances. The Ninth District reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a parent seeking modification of legal custody from a nonparent must first prove a change in circumstances before the court considers the child's best interest	Mother: Court should apply best-interest-only standard; change-of-circumstances is not a prerequisite in private legal-custody disputes between parent and nonparent	Legal custodians & trial court: Parent must show a change in circumstances (relying on R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) and R.C. 2151.42(B) and In re James)	Court: Reversed — change-of-circumstances requirement was the wrong standard here; trial court should evaluate modification under best-interest standard (R.C. 2151.23 context)
Whether bifurcating the hearing and refusing to consider best interest without prior notice denied Mother's due process	Mother: She lacked notice that change-of-circumstances would be the sole threshold issue and was deprived of consideration of best interest	Court below: Bifurcation appropriate; change-of-circumstances threshold governed	Court: Did not decide on due-process preservation; reversal rests on legal-standard error (trial court applied wrong standard), remanded for best-interest analysis

In re James, 866 N.E.2d 467 (Ohio 2007) (considered constitutionality and application of change-of-circumstances requirement in modifying parental-rights decrees)
In re Hockstock, 781 N.E.2d 971 (Ohio 2002) (juvenile court must use best-interest standard for parental modification petitions after an unsuitability determination)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parents have fundamental liberty interest in care, custody, and management of their children)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (recognition of parental fundamental rights in custody matters)
In re Murray, 556 N.E.2d 1169 (Ohio 1990) (parental rights constitute a fundamental liberty interest)
In re C.R., 843 N.E.2d 1188 (Ohio 2006) (unsuitability adjudication does not permanently eliminate all residual parental rights)