2022 Ohio 499
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Brown County Children Services removed three children in 2019 after reports that guardians (the Breezes) severely malnourished Fae (diagnosed with Kwashiorkor); children adjudicated abused/neglected or dependent and placed with kin/foster caregivers.
- Mother had relinquished custody of Fae (age 6) and Mary (infant) in 2013 and admitted she had not seen them since; she testified she learned of abuse years earlier but did little to intervene.
- Mother had prior substance and child‑services involvement (including a Kentucky case after a positive drug test while pregnant) and underwent a mental‑health assessment that the evaluator found incomplete and noted defensiveness and low motivation for treatment.
- The children (and guardian ad litem) expressed little or no desire for contact with Mother; caseworker testified both girls were thriving in current placements and that contact with Mother could be harmful, especially placing Fae and Mary together.
- Juvenile court denied Mother’s motion for legal custody and granted BCCS’s motions to award legal custody to the children’s custodians/foster parent; Mother appealed, arguing the decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence and that the court failed to address her visitation motion.
- The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed, finding abundant credible evidence supporting the juvenile court’s best‑interest determination and concluding Mother’s visitation motion was implicitly denied and meritless.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | BCCS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denying Mother legal custody and granting custody to nonparents was against the manifest weight of the evidence / an abuse of discretion | Mother: As biological parent and the only parent at the hearing, she was entitled to custody; she’s employed, completed some classes, and can care for the children | BCCS: Mother had no bond with the children, knew of abuse but failed to protect them, had recent substance/child‑services issues, and children are thriving in current placements | Court affirmed: juvenile court did not abuse its discretion; award to nonparents was supported by substantial, credible evidence and best‑interest factors favored custodians/foster parent |
| Whether the trial court erred by failing to address Mother’s motion for visitation | Mother: Court did not expressly rule on her visitation motion | BCCS: Magistrate had partially allowed visitation at BCCS discretion; evidence showed children did not want contact and visitation would be harmful | Court affirmed: visitation motion was implicitly denied; record shows issue was considered and denial was not reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (1997) (custody awards supported by substantial credible evidence will not be reversed as against the weight of the evidence)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (appellate standard for construing evidence in reviewing factual findings)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (definition and review of abuse of discretion)
- Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) (parental rights are fundamental but subject to state regulation protecting children)
- In re Adoption of Kreyche, 15 Ohio St.3d 159 (1984) (paramount concern in custody matters is the best interest of the child)