In re Guardianship of T.M.D.-D
2021 Ohio 3249
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Infant T.M.D.-D. born July 3, 2017; maternal aunt (Aunt) filed for guardianship March 16, 2018 requesting "person and estate" guardianship and listing a definite end date: the child’s 18th birthday (July 3, 2035); both parents signed waivers/consents.
- Probate court’s April 12, 2018 letters of guardianship granted Aunt powers over person and estate and described the term as "indefinite."
- Father (appellant) later finished college and vocational training, returned to seek termination (moved Nov. 2019), testifying he understood the guardianship to be temporary and would not have consented to permanency.
- Aunt and maternal grandmother testified they believed the guardianship was intended to last until the child turned 18; the probate court credited their testimony over Father’s.
- Probate court concluded by clear and convincing evidence the parents relinquished custody and the guardianship was meant to be permanent until age 18; it denied Father’s termination motion (later removed estate powers but left person guardianship until 18).
- Father appealed; the Fourth District affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in the probate court’s factual findings and legal conclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the probate court relied on facts outside the record or impermissibly changed prior orders | Father: court invented facts and retroactively "clarified" letters to reach preferred outcome; letters showed "indefinite" term | Aunt: court’s interpretation is supported by the application, consents, and testimony; clerical wording in letters was not dispositive | Court: No abuse; evidence supports court’s inference that the application and consents manifested intent for guardianship until age 18; clerical wording was not controlling |
| Whether the guardianship was temporary or permanent | Father: guardianship was temporary (he expected it to end after school/programs); letters’ "indefinite" wording supports presumption of temporariness | Aunt: application explicitly requested duration until age 18; family communications and conduct indicate permanency | Court: Guardianship was permanent until age 18 as shown by clear and convincing evidence; appellate court affirmed |
| Whether the guardianship should be terminated | Father: good cause to terminate under R.C. 2111.46 because he is able and suitable and original reasons no longer exist | Aunt: no change in circumstances; child is integrated and well cared for; termination not warranted under the stricter standard applicable after parental relinquishment | Court: Denied termination; because parents consented and the guardianship was permanent, the stricter standard applied and was not met; affirmed on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Masitto v. Masitto, 22 Ohio St.3d 63 (parents’ paramount custody right and when that right is forfeited by consent)
- In re Thompkins, 115 Ohio St.3d 409 (recognition of parental liberty interest in child custody)
- In re Mullen, 129 Ohio St.3d 417 (parents’ custodial right paramount to nonparents)
- In re Guardianship of Hollins, 114 Ohio St.3d 434 (a guardianship predicated solely on minority terminates at majority)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- State v. Brady, 119 Ohio St.3d 375 (definition of abuse of discretion standard)
- In re Guardianship of Sanders, 118 Ohio App.3d 606 (probate court’s statements to parties about permanency support finding of permanent guardianship)