In re K.D.W.
2017 Ohio 1280
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Child K.D.W. (b. 2005) lived with mother and maternal grandmother A.W.; mother was murdered in May 2015.
- Grandmother A.W. filed for legal custody of K.D.W.; Father moved to modify custody and sought custody.
- A magistrate conducted a hearing and issued a decision awarding Father designation as residential parent and legal custodian.
- A.W. timely objected to the magistrate’s decision, requested the trial transcript, and noted the magistrate’s decision contained no factual findings; the GAL had recommended custody to A.W.
- The juvenile court granted A.W. leave to file the transcript but adopted the magistrate’s decision the next day before the transcript was prepared or filed.
- A.W. appealed, arguing the court failed to conduct the required independent (de novo) review and improperly adopted the magistrate’s order without the transcript.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (A.W.) | Defendant's Argument (Father/CCDCFS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by designating Father as residential parent/legal custodian contrary to child’s best interests | Award to Father is against child’s best interests; magistrate’s decision omitted key facts (e.g., GAL recommendation to A.W.) | Magistrate’s decision stands; court adopted it | Not decided on merits — court found premature because independent review was not performed; remanded for proper review |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by adopting magistrate’s decision before transcript was filed | Court could not perform independent review without transcript/factual record; adoption was improper | Court’s adoption was procedurally acceptable | Court held trial court abused discretion; sustained this assignment and remanded for independent review |
| Whether magistrate was required to include findings of fact and conclusions of law | Magistrate’s lack of findings prevented review and required transcript for de novo review | Magistrate not required to include findings absent timely request | Magistrate not required to include findings where none requested, but trial court still must independently review objections using transcript/evidence |
| Proper standard for trial court when ruling on objections to magistrate | Trial court must conduct an independent/de novo review of objected matters | Deference to magistrate is improper when de novo review is required | Court reiterated duty to independently review factual issues on objection and not merely defer to magistrate |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (trial court has broad discretion in custody proceedings)
- Savioli v. Savioli, 99 Ohio App.3d 69 (trial court abuses discretion when it rules on a referee’s report without a transcript)
- Knauer v. Keener, 143 Ohio App.3d 789 (trial court must perform de novo review of factual and legal issues on objection; magistrate is subordinate officer)