In re A.M., 2019 Ohio 5221

A.M., born 2009, was adjudicated a dependent child after a May 2017 CSB referral alleging Mother’s drug use, mistreatment, and abuse of an older half‑sibling; A.M. was placed in temporary custody of CSB.
M.P., a long‑time family friend, was approved as a kinship placement; A.M. and her two older half‑siblings lived with M.P. throughout the case.
Father had minimal involvement for A.M.’s first seven years; during the case he developed a relationship via supervised then unsupervised/overnight visits and sought legal custody.
CSB and A.M. filed competing dispositional motions: Father sought legal custody; A.M. and CSB also moved for legal custody to M.P.; the magistrate awarded custody to M.P. and the trial court adopted that decision.
The trial court’s custody decision rested on the child’s best interests (guided by R.C. 2151.414(D) and R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)): key factors were A.M.’s bond with her older siblings, A.M.’s expressed wish to stay with M.P., and A.M.’s adjustment to home, school, and community while living with M.P.
Father appealed, arguing the custody award to M.P. was against the manifest weight of the evidence; the Ninth District affirmed.

Issue	Father’s Argument	Opposing Argument	Held
Whether awarding legal custody to M.P. (a nonparent/kinship caregiver) was against the manifest weight of the evidence and not in the child’s best interest	J.M.: He complied with the case plan, can provide a suitable home, and therefore legal custody should be awarded to him	CSB / trial court: Best‑interest factors (sibling bonds, child’s wishes, stability/adjustment, permanence) favor M.P.; moving A.M. would disrupt school and separate her from siblings	Court affirmed legal custody to M.P.; decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and was in A.M.’s best interest

Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for reviewing manifest‑weight challenges; deference to factfinder and presumption in favor of its determinations)