2014 Ohio 1766
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Howard appeals a judgment continuing legal custody of her children C.J.L. and K.R.L. with the Campbells, her parents.
- The Campbells initially obtained temporary custody of the children in June 2004 under R.C. 2151.03 due to neglect/dependency concerns.
- An October 2009 agreed entry stated custody remained with the Campbells, though Howard did not sign that entry.
- Howard moved multiple times (2011, 2012) seeking modification or termination of the Campbells’ temporary custody; the case went to a two-day evidentiary hearing.
- The trial court held there had been no change in circumstances and that a change in custody would not be in the children’s best interests, continuing custody with the Campbells.
- The Fourth District reversed, concluding the court erred by applying the change-of-circumstances/best-interests standard rather than considering whether the problems prompting temporary custody had been resolved under neglect jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred in applying the change-of-circumstances standard without a finding of parental unsuitability | Howard argues unsuitability must be shown before nonparent custody is reviewed. | Campbells contend the matter was governed by neglect-based temporary custody and converted arrangements, so a change-of-circumstances standard applied. | Reversed; improper standard applied; remanded for proceedings consistent with neglect jurisdiction. |
| Whether the court should terminate temporary custody if the nurturing problems were resolved | Howard seeks termination of temporary custody if the original problems were resolved. | Campbells contend ongoing jurisdiction and retention of custody were appropriate given the unresolved concerns. | Moot pursuant to the reversal on the first issue; remand for consistent disposition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Purvis v. Hazelbaker, 181 Ohio App.3d 167, 2009-Ohio-765 (4th Dist. 2009) (parents have paramount right to custody unless unsuitability established; nonparents not favored absent changes)
- In re Perales, 52 Ohio St.2d 89, 369 N.E.2d 1047 (Supreme Court of Ohio 1977) (parents have paramount right absent abandonment or total incapacity)
- In re Young Children, 76 Ohio St.3d 632, 669 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio Supreme Court 1996) (retains jurisdiction over child for welfare; sunset provisions govern disposition if problems persist)
- In re D.H., 2009-Ohio-6009 (4th Dist. Gallia No. 09CA11) (dismissal not appropriate; court may make further dispositional orders if problems persist)
- Holloway v. Clermont County Dept. of Human Servs., 80 Ohio St.3d 128, 684 N.E.2d 1217 (Ohio Supreme Court 1997) (sunset of temporary custody does not end court jurisdiction to protect welfare)