2022 Ohio 3540
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background:
- Maternal grandparents (petitioners) filed for nonparent custody of newborn C.R. on Feb. 11, 2020 after he was born with neonatal abstinence syndrome; emergency interim custody was granted to petitioners.
- Mother initially did not identify a father; father and mother had an on‑off relationship in 2019; father denied believing he could have another child and did not establish paternity immediately.
- Father filed for paternity in Sept. 2020; DNA confirmed paternity on Feb. 1, 2021. A magistrate hearing on petitioners’ custody complaint occurred Mar. 10, 2021 (before father had substantive visitation), and custody was awarded to petitioners.
- Magistrate and juvenile court found father unsuitable based principally on abandonment and that awarding custody to father would be detrimental to C.R.; father objected and appealed.
- The appellate court held the abandonment finding was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence (father had not held himself out as father before testing and filed for paternity promptly), reversed the custody award, and remanded for a new hearing on whether custody to father would be detrimental.
Issues:
| Issue | Petitioners' Argument | Father's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether father abandoned C.R., making him an unsuitable parent | Father failed to visit/establish paternity for months and thus abandoned the child | Father never acknowledged paternity prior to testing and promptly pursued paternity once plausible; no evidence of settled purpose to relinquish parental duties | Reversed: trial court abused discretion—preponderance did not show abandonment |
| Whether court erred by trying petitioners’ custody complaint without adjudicating father’s custody motion | Proceeding on petitioners’ complaint was proper at that time | Father argued his custody motion should have been resolved concurrently | Moot on appeal—the appellate court reversed on abandonment and remanded, declined to decide this assignment of error |
Key Cases Cited
- Hockstock v. Hockstock, 98 Ohio St.3d 238 (principle that parents have fundamental liberty interest in custody and state must use fundamentally fair procedures)
- In re Perales, 52 Ohio St.2d 89 (establishes that nonparent custody requires a finding of parental unsuitability before awarding custody to nonparent)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse‑of‑discretion standard defined)
- In re Masters, 165 Ohio St. 503 (definition of abandonment as settled purpose to forego parental duties)
- In re K.T.1, 121 N.E.3d 847 (parental conduct and belief about parentage can inform abandonment analysis)