2019 Ohio 9
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Mother filed pro se in May 2015 to modify custody or, alternatively, obtain additional visitation for two children: K.M. (b. 2003) and J.H. (b. 2012); at hearing children lived separately with relatives (uncle for K.M., aunt for J.H.).
- A GAL was appointed; Mother later sought and briefly had appointed counsel/GAL but that appointed counsel was withdrawn/dismissed before the October 2017 merits hearing.
- October 2017 hearing: children’s GAL recommended no change in custody; recommended supervised visitation (if any) for J.H. but regular visitation for K.M.; GAL found both children were thriving with current custodians.
- Magistrate denied Mother’s request for custody of both children, denied any visitation with J.H., and granted limited Saturday visitation for K.M.; trial court later adopted magistrate’s decisions after ruling on Mother’s objections.
- Key factual bases: J.H. is medically fragile with significant care needs and had almost no contact with Mother since infancy; K.M. had previously lived with Mother but had educational deficits while in Mother’s care and was doing better in uncle’s custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether verdicts were against the manifest weight of the evidence | Mother: trial court’s rulings lacked supportive evidence | CCDCFS/GAL: record contains credible evidence supporting no custody change and limited visitation | No — court found ample credible evidence; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether visitation order (denial for J.H.) abused discretion / was contrary to best interests | Mother: entitled to visitation; GAL removal prejudiced her | Respondents: J.H.’s medical/developmental needs and bonding with custodian make visitation harmful | No — denial of visitation for J.H. was within discretion and protects his best interests |
| Whether limited visitation for K.M. was unduly restrictive / effectively denied visitation | Mother: Saturday-only order with transport arrangements is effectively no access | Respondents: limited visits appropriate given K.M.’s schooling, Mother’s past neglect of education, supervision/transport concerns | No — Saturday visits with transport are appropriate and not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether removing Mother’s guardian ad litem violated due process | Mother: dismissal of GAL prejudiced her case | Respondents: statute/Juv.R. do not mandate GAL for a competent adult parent; Mother failed to show prejudice | No — removal/dismissal did not deny due process; Mother failed to show resulting prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Roudebush v. Roudebush, 20 Ohio App.3d 380 (10th Dist. 1985) (trial court has broader discretion in setting visitation than custody)
- Appleby v. Appleby, 24 Ohio St.3d 39 (Ohio 1986) (modification of visitation governed by best-interest analysis under R.C. 3109.051)
- Braatz v. Braatz, 85 Ohio St.3d 40 (Ohio 1999) (change-of-custody requires change in circumstance plus best-interest analysis)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (Ohio 1997) (custody modifications reviewed for abuse of discretion; deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard defined)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (presumption of correctness for trial court findings based on witness demeanor)
- In re Jane Doe I, 57 Ohio St.3d 135 (Ohio 1991) (appellate courts should not substitute their judgment for trial court on credibility)