2014 Ohio 1349
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Nicole Basista, born with Noonan’s Syndrome, turned 18 and was later placed under probate guardianship: mother Marijana Glass was appointed guardian of the person and father Ronald Basista guardian of the estate.
- After Nicole acquired an interest in the family home, Glass sought guardianship to facilitate a sale; competing visitation issues arose thereafter.
- Basista filed motions in probate and domestic relations courts seeking visitation; the domestic court declined jurisdiction and Basista did not timely appeal that ruling.
- Probate court appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL), ordered investigative records under seal, and the magistrate conducted an in camera interview of Nicole.
- Nicole stated she did not want to visit her father; the magistrate found she could express her own wishes and was not coached. The probate court adopted the magistrate’s decision and granted Glass’s motion to dismiss Basista’s visitation application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Basista) | Defendant's Argument (Glass) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probate or domestic relations court had jurisdiction over visitation of an adult ward | Domestic court should hear visitation; probate court erred in asserting jurisdiction | Probate court has exclusive jurisdiction over guardianship matters and related visitation for an adult ward | Probate court properly exercised jurisdiction over visitation matters involving an adult ward under guardianship |
| Whether a parent has a statutory right to visitation with an adult ward | Father argued he retains visitation rights because daughter is legally disabled and dependent | No legal authority grants an adult ward’s parent an absolute right to visitation; visitation governed by probate court in ward’s best interest | No absolute parental right to visitation for an adult ward; probate court may decide visitation based on ward’s interests |
| Whether probate court erred by dismissing without evidentiary hearing and by issuing protective order blocking Basista’s subpoenas | Denied ability to present evidence, cross-examine GAL, or contest allegations (e.g., molestation) — due process violation | No recognized legal right to visitation to trigger those due-process procedures when ward can express wishes; court properly limited discovery and protected records | Dismissal and protective order affirmed; Basista had no established entitlement to the relief that would invoke the claimed procedural rights |
| Whether Nicole’s expressed refusal to visit could be dispositive despite guardianship | Father contended Nicole was not emancipated and thus incapable of deciding visitation | Glass and magistrate contended Nicole—though disabled—demonstrated sufficient capacity and statutory rights to decide with whom to communicate | Court found Nicole competent to express her preference; her refusal controlled and visitation was not ordered over her objection |
Key Cases Cited
- Burns v. Daily, 114 Ohio App.3d 693 (11th Dist.) (jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 64 Ohio St.3d 145 (Ohio 1992) (questions of law are reviewed de novo)
- Castle v. Castle, 15 Ohio St.3d 279 (Ohio 1984) (parents’ duty to support certain disabled adult children treated as if child were still minor; did not address post-majority visitation/custody)