In re B.M.
2017 Ohio 7878
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- B.M., born 2002, lived with her mother; Hocking County Juvenile Court entered a child-support/residence order in 2005 naming the mother residential parent.
- In 2013–2014 competing custody filings occurred in Shelby County and Hocking County: grandparents (Mark and Melody Meuller) filed for custody in Shelby; father Nickolas Mabry filed in Shelby and later in Hocking.
- Hocking County retained jurisdiction based on its 2005 proceedings; Shelby transferred a pending matter to Hocking after judges conferred about conflicting ex parte orders.
- After a June 2014 hearing, the juvenile court found both parents suitable, awarded custody to father, denied grandparents’ custody claim, and continued grandparents’ visitation claim.
- Grandparents appealed; this court affirmed, holding (1) Hocking County had proper subject-matter jurisdiction and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding both parents suitable under Perales and denying grandparents’ custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Meuller) | Defendant's Argument (Mabry/Hocking) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction | Hocking lacked jurisdiction in 2014 because no parties resided there and prior 2005 support order did not confer continuing jurisdiction | Hocking acquired jurisdiction in 2005 via child-support proceeding and retained original jurisdiction; Shelby properly transferred case back to Hocking | Hocking had exclusive original jurisdiction based on the 2005 proceedings; transfer from Shelby was proper — jurisdiction upheld |
| Custody to nonparent (Perales factors) — father's suitability | Grandparents argued father abandoned child (no court-ordered visitation, unpaid child support, limited contact) so father was unsuitable | Father presented testimony of ongoing relationship, recent support withholding remedied, and willingness to care for child; guardian ad litem recommended parental custody absent parental unfitness | Trial court’s credibility findings supported that both parents were suitable; no abuse of discretion in denying grandparents’ custody claim |
| Detriment factor under Perales | Grandparents argued award to father would be detrimental (abandonment, smoking in home, instability) | Father and witnesses disputed harmfulness; court weighed credibility and evidence | Court implicitly considered detriment and found insufficient evidence to declare parental custody detrimental; affirmed |
| Procedural fairness / judicial conduct / in camera interviews | Grandparents alleged judge was biased, curtailed evidence, and conducted impermissible in-camera interviews (with mother present) and influenced child’s testimony | Court record showed judicial concern for abuse allegations, in-camera interviews and other procedures were within court discretion; no reversible procedural error shown | Appellate court declined to find judicial bias or procedural error warranting reversal; remaining assignments of error not separately argued and were overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Perales, 52 Ohio St.2d 89 (Ohio 1977) (sets standard for awarding custody to nonparents: parent must be found unsuitable by statutory grounds or award would be detrimental)
- In re Pushcar, 110 Ohio St.3d 332 (Ohio 2006) (discusses competing jurisdictional claims and court authority)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (appellate courts should defer to trial court credibility determinations)