In re K.Y., 2013 Ohio 3039

A.Y., born 1999, is the child of mother A.S. and father/appellant C.Y.; the Agency intervened after allegations of sexual abuse by A.S.’s live‑in boyfriend and entered a protective supervision order finding A.Y. dependent.
C.Y. moved for legal custody; CASA/GAL initially sought temporary custody by the Agency but later withdrew that request and recommended significant time with each parent.
At a hearing, the juvenile court denied C.Y.’s motion for legal custody, continued A.Y. with A.S., granted visitation to C.Y., and extended the protective supervision order for six months.
The court mistakenly stated that A.S. had previously been awarded legal custody, but the record does not show any prior custody decree allocating parental rights.
The court applied the best‑interest factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) and found both parents had serious deficits (mother: failure to protect children from unsafe boyfriends; father: criminal history, prior child endangering, long‑term unemployment, insufficient housing, and failure to support the child).
The court concluded maintaining the status quo with the mother was in A.Y.’s best interest; C.Y. appealed claiming wrong statutory standard and insufficient evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the juvenile court erred by finding a prior grant of legal custody to the mother and thus applying R.C. 3109.04 instead of R.C. 2151.353	C.Y.: No prior allocation of parental rights existed; court erred in treating this as a modify‑custody situation and applying 3109.04	Court/Respondent: Court used 3109.04 best‑interest factors appropriate for legal custody in dependency cases; any misstatement about a prior decree did not affect analysis	Court: Agreed the record shows no prior custody decree, but the error was harmless because application of R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) best‑interest factors was appropriate in this dependency/legal‑custody context
Whether the evidence supports denying C.Y.’s motion for legal custody under the applicable best‑interest standard	C.Y.: Even under 3109.04 factors, evidence favored awarding him custody (equal wishes of parents/child)	Court/Respondent: Evidence showed substantial concerns about C.Y. (criminal history, child endangering, marginal housing, no support) and the mother’s ability to care for the child with supervision; maintaining status quo better protected A.Y.	Court: Held there was competent, credible evidence supporting denial of custody; trial court did not abuse its discretion

None with official reporter citations were cited in the opinion (the opinion references unpublished/locally‑reported appellate decisions).