In re J.T.
2017 Ohio 1303
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Child (born ~2001) lived with Mother until incidents in 2014: domestic-violence call in Sept. 2014 and a shoplifting/child endangering arrest in Oct. 2014 led MCCS involvement.
- After the Sept. 2014 incident the child was temporarily placed with Father; returned to Mother after Mother cleaned home; then placed back with Father after the shoplifting arrest.
- December 2014: MCCS filed a dependency complaint; the juvenile court adjudicated the child dependent and initially placed the child with Father under protective supervision to MCCS.
- April 2015: Magistrate awarded Father temporary custody with supervised visitation for Mother; this was affirmed on appeal by this court.
- April–June 2016: Father moved for legal custody; a magistrate awarded legal custody to Father with one year of protective supervision; the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision in October 2016.
- Trial court found the child (then 15) wishes to live with Father, was thriving in his home, has stronger relationships there (including with paternal grandmother and half-siblings), Mother’s relationship with the child remained volatile, Mother lacked stable housing/income, Father had stable housing/employment despite past criminal history, and Father cooperates with visitation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether legal custody award required clear-and-convincing proof | Mother: Father failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that legal custody is in child’s best interest | Father: Legal-custody determination requires preponderance of the evidence when parental rights are not being terminated | Court: Preponderance is the correct standard for legal custody; clear-and-convincing not required; no error |
| Whether award of legal custody was in the child’s best interest | Mother: Child lived with Mother until 2014; Mother completed or substantially completed case-plan tasks; relationship not sufficiently "strained"; court didn’t personally interview child | Father: Child wishes to live with Father; child is happier, doing better in school, and has stable home; Mother lacks verifiable housing/income and has volatile relationship with child | Court: Best-interest factors overwhelmingly support legal custody to Father; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether trial court should have extended temporary custody instead | Mother: A second extension of temporary custody would allow reunification | Father: Extension would be futile given lack of progress and improved child adjustment with Father | Court: Extension would be futile; legal custody appropriate |
| Relevance of parent’s child-support arrearage | Mother: Father’s arrearage disfavors custody award | Father: Employed and making payments; arrearage considered but not determinative | Court: Arrearage noted but does not outweigh best-interest findings favoring Father |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)