In re D.B., 2016 Ohio 7910

Butler County Children Services adjudicated D.B. a dependent child after reports he witnessed domestic violence by Mother’s then-boyfriend and was threatened; court ordered no contact between D.B. and that man.
D.B. initially remained with Mother under protective supervision but was removed after Mother married the man who was subject to the no-contact order and allowed contact between him and the child.
The Agency’s case plan required domestic violence and mental-health assessments and follow-through; Mother completed some services (mental-health assessment, later a domestic-violence course and anger management) but resisted or failed to fully engage with recommended interventions.
D.B. was placed with his maternal uncle (Uncle), where he improved academically, socially, and emotionally; Uncle facilitated supervised visitation with Father and moved for legal custody after about a year of placement.
The magistrate granted Uncle legal custody; the juvenile court adopted that decision after hearing Mother’s objections. Mother appealed, arguing lack of clear and convincing evidence to support transfer of legal custody under the statutory best-interest factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (Uncle/Agency)	Held
Whether legal custody to a nonparent is supported by the required showing under Ohio law (best-interest factors)	Mother argued the court lacked sufficient evidence that awarding Uncle legal custody was in D.B.’s best interest and that she should reunify with her son	Uncle and Agency argued D.B. thrived in Uncle’s home, Mother failed to protect child from abuser, did not fully comply with case plan, and impeded visitation with Father	Court held preponderance of the evidence supported awarding Uncle legal custody under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1); best-interest factors favored Uncle
Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion / decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence	Mother claimed the custody award was contrary to the evidence and an abuse of discretion	Court/Agency pointed to extensive testimonial and documentary evidence of child’s improved adjustment with Uncle and risks posed by Mother’s choices and husband’s history	Court found no abuse of discretion and deferred to juvenile court’s credibility findings; judgment affirmed

(Opinion did not cite authorities with official reporter citations suitable for Bluebook formatting.)