In re C.C.-L.
2017 Ohio 9296
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mother and Father shared parenting of C.C.-L. (b. 2011) under a domestic relations order; Mother is also the mother of R.C. (b. 2016), whose paternity is different. CSB filed dependency complaints after R.C. exhibited neonatal withdrawal from Mother’s in‑pregnancy drug use.
- Parties stipulated that both children were dependent; CSB retained protective supervision initially while children stayed with Mother.
- Following hearings, the magistrate placed C.C.-L. in Father’s temporary custody and limited Mother to supervised visitation; Mother did not object to that temporary custody order.
- Later, Mother and Father both moved for legal custody of C.C.-L.; after a contested hearing the magistrate granted legal custody to Father. Mother objected, arguing the decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence and that the court failed to consider certain R.C. 2151.414(D) best‑interest factors.
- The juvenile court overruled Mother’s objections and affirmed the magistrate’s decision; this appeal followed. The Ninth District affirmed, holding legal custody to Father was supported by the preponderance of the evidence and that Mother forfeited challenges to visitation and GAL compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father/Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether awarding legal custody to Father was against manifest weight / not in child’s best interest | Award to Father contravenes child’s best interest; Mother had remedied conditions and court failed to weigh best‑interest factors properly | Child was thriving in Father’s home with stability, bonding, counseling progress; Mother had inconsistent compliance with drug‑testing/treatment | Affirmed: award to Father supported by preponderance of the evidence and not against manifest weight |
| Whether the juvenile court failed to consider the child’s wishes under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(b) | Court ignored child’s wishes or should have credited child’s expressed preference | GAL deliberately did not ask the 5‑year‑old due to apparent coaching and immaturity; GAL reported and recommended custody to Father | Affirmed: court properly considered the child’s wishes via GAL’s report and reasoning |
| Whether limiting Mother to supervised visitation and denying holiday schedule was erroneous | Supervised visits and no holidays were improper given circumstances | Respondents emphasized stability concerns; CSB did not contest custody order | Not reached on merits—Mother forfeited issue by failing to object below; no plain‑error argument made |
| Whether GAL complied with Sup.R. 48 and performed required duties | GAL failed to fulfill Sup.R. 48 obligations | GAL documented reasons for actions; no contemporaneous objection | Forfeited by Mother for failing to object; alternatively record shows GAL explained why she did not directly question the child |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for weighing manifest weight of the evidence and deference to factfinder)
- Varner v. Varner, 170 Ohio App.3d 448 (2007) (issues not raised in objections to a magistrate’s decision are forfeited on appeal)