2019 Ohio 116
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- H.J.H. was born to parents who struggled with substance abuse; maternal grandparents cared for her and mother retained legal custody initially.
- Father entered treatment, ceased heroin use by November 2014, paid child support, exercised visitation, and sought legal custody in October 2016.
- Grandparents filed for custody; a GAL recommended grandparents, finding father "unsuitable," though the magistrate found father suitable and awarded custody to him after a hearing.
- The juvenile court judge sustained grandparents’ objections to the magistrate and, relying in part on the GAL, found father unsuitable and awarded custody to grandparents without taking further testimony.
- The court of appeals reviewed whether the record supported a finding that awarding custody to father would be detrimental (i.e., that father was unsuitable) and reversed, concluding the trial court abused its discretion and awarding custody to father; the majority remanded to set grandparent visitation.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Grandparents’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was father "unsuitable" so that custody could be taken from him? | Father argued he was not unsuitable: stable housing, employment, sobriety, daycare, and involvement with child. | Grandparents argued father’s instability (lease not in his name, recent DUI, financial uncertainty, weak support network) made him unsuitable. | Court held the record did not show unsuitability; trial court abused discretion. |
| Should court compare parent vs third parties under best-interest analysis before finding unsuitability? | Father argued suitability must be based on detriment, not on comparative "better" environment. | Grandparents emphasized their long-term care and stable home as reasons to retain custody. | Court held comparisons to grandparents’ advantages are improper for suitability; a better situation isn’t necessarily detrimental. |
| What is the standard of review for custody awards and suitability findings? | Father asserted trial court’s finding must be supported by competent, credible evidence; parents have a paramount right. | Grandparents urged deference to trial court and GAL assessment. | Court applied abuse-of-discretion review and found the trial court’s unsuitability finding unsupported by competent, credible evidence. |
| Remedy after concluding trial court erred? | Father sought reversal and award of custody to him. | Grandparents sought to uphold trial court’s award to them. | Majority reversed and entered judgment awarding custody to father, remanding to set grandparent visitation; one concurrence would have remanded for further suitability factfinding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Perales v. Perales, 52 Ohio St.2d 89 (1977) (parents have paramount right to custody; unsuitability must be proven by a preponderance)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard defined)
- Bechtol v. Bechtol, 49 Ohio St.3d 21 (1990) (weight of evidence review for custody awards)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (findings must be supported by competent, credible evidence)
- Murray v. Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (1990) (parental custody presumed in child’s best interest absent detriment)
- In re Z.P., 96 N.E.3d 1115 (Ohio App.) (parental liberty interest and standard for unsuitability)
- In re D.D., 100 N.E.3d 141 (Ohio App.) (examples of detriment sufficient to find unsuitability)