2022 Ohio 2451
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- C.S., born 2011, was adjudicated a dependent child after both parents admitted dependency counts; the court initially placed C.S. in temporary custody of maternal grandmother Beth under agency protective supervision.
- Mother’s unsupervised visitation was suspended after a positive methamphetamine/amphetamine test; father Charles had been resistant to agency case plans and was serving jail time during the case.
- The agency moved for legal custody to Beth; Charles moved for legal custody to paternal grandmother Janet and requested an interstate (ICPC) home-study for Janet (Indiana resident).
- The court held Charles’s ICPC-home-study motion in abeyance pending legal-custody resolution; at the legal-custody hearing the parties agreed that legal custody to Beth was in C.S.’s best interest.
- Beth executed a statement of understanding for legal custody in open court; Charles withdrew his custody motion and later appealed, arguing the court erred by (1) holding the ICPC study in abeyance and (2) accepting Beth’s statement signed at the hearing rather than filed before the hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused its discretion by holding an ICPC home-study in abeyance for an out-of-state proposed custodian | Charles: abeyance prevented him from presenting supporting evidence for Janet’s custody motion | Agency/Trial court: abeyance was procedural; the court could defer the ICPC until custody outcome; parties later agreed to custody to Beth, making the study moot | Court: No abuse — the ICPC motion became moot when Charles withdrew and the parties agreed to custody; any error invited/waived by Charles |
| Whether the court violated R.C. 2151.353(A)(3) by allowing the prospective custodian’s statement of understanding to be signed during (not before) the dispositional hearing | Charles: statute requires the statement be filed prior to the dispositional hearing and the court to verify understanding | Agency/Trial court: Beth affirmed in open court and signed the statement at the hearing, satisfying the statute’s aims | Court: No reversible error — Beth affirmed her understanding in open court; Charles invited any error by agreeing to the disposition and withdrawing his motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
- In re C.R., 108 Ohio St.3d 369 (Ohio 2006) (award of legal custody does not divest parents of residual rights; parental unfitness not prerequisite to legal custody)
- State ex rel. Allen Cty. Children Servs. Bd. v. Mercer Cty. Common Pleas Court, Prob. Div., 150 Ohio St.3d 230 (Ohio 2016) (juvenile court’s jurisdiction under R.C. chapter 2151)
- Koch v. Rist, 89 Ohio St.3d 250 (Ohio 2000) (invited error doctrine/waiver)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (Ohio 1979) (adjudicatory findings can inform dispositional unsuitability analysis)