In re L.W.
2021 Ohio 2461
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Mother gave birth to L.W. in 2016; Mother has been primary caregiver and maternal grandmother provides daycare while Mother works part-time. Father is the biological father and works remotely.
- Father filed a complaint for parentage in May 2017 seeking custody shortly after Mother filed for child support. A guardian ad litem (GAL) was appointed; final hearing began October 11, 2018 and concluded May 31, 2019.
- Testimony: Father expressed safety and structure concerns about Mother’s household (including behavior of a 12-year-old half-brother). Mother raised concerns about Father’s parenting practices (snacks, caffeine, inconsistent discipline) and behavioral changes in the child after Father’s visits.
- GAL recommended Mother be designated residential parent/legal custodian and that Father receive a 180-day "phased-in" standard parenting-time schedule to build the parent–child relationship.
- Magistrate adopted the GAL recommendation; Father objected. Juvenile court overruled objections after reviewing transcripts. Father appealed, raising (1) denial of immediate drug testing of Mother, and (2) error in awarding custody to Mother and imposing a phased-in parenting-time order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Mother/Juvenile Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by denying Father's request to order Mother to undergo drug testing immediately | Father argued the court should have ordered drug testing at hearing or shortly after because child’s best interest warranted testing | Juvenile court and Mother argued there was no evidence or reasonable suspicion of drug use to justify testing; testing is discretionary and may be ordered only when relevant to best interest | Court held no abuse of discretion: no evidence or reasonable suspicion of current/recent drug use and Father failed to pursue scheduling as instructed, so denial proper |
| Whether the court erred in naming Mother residential parent and ordering a "phased-in" parenting-time schedule for Father | Father argued the court should have awarded him greater parenting time and ultimately residential custody, and that the phased-in schedule was unduly restrictive | Juvenile court and GAL argued the best interest of the child favored Mother as residential parent; phased-in schedule (per GAL) would protect child’s adjustment and allow Father to build parenting skills | Court held no abuse of discretion: custody decision supported by credible evidence (child’s behavior after visits, concerns about Father’s care) and phased-in schedule was in child’s best interest and consistent with GAL recommendation |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard defining abuse of discretion)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (Ohio 1997) (appellate deference in custody decisions due to trial-court observation of witnesses)
- Harrold v. Collier, 107 Ohio St.3d 44 (Ohio 2005) (child’s best interest controls over parent's preferences)