In re M.N.
2016 Ohio 7808
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 2012 Lucas County Children Services intervened after reports the children M.N. and C.Y. were neglected, malnourished, and sexually abused while in mother L.Y.’s care; temporary custody was given to relatives J.F. and Je.F.
- L.Y. has a history of substance abuse, domestic violence, unstable housing, and inconsistent visitation; two guardians ad litem (GALs) reported ongoing concerns about her mental health, dishonesty, and decision-making.
- After an earlier appeal and remand, the proceedings were bifurcated to determine parental suitability (Perales factor) and children’s best interests; parties later stipulated that custody with J.F. and Je.F. was in the children’s best interests.
- At the suitability hearings the magistrate found, by a preponderance, that awarding custody to either parent would be detrimental to the children based on (inter alia) ongoing risky behavior by mother, lack of transportation/support, failure to meet children’s needs, poor parenting decisions, and historical neglect/abuse.
- The juvenile court adopted the magistrate’s finding of parental unsuitability and awarded legal custody to J.F. and Je.F.; L.Y. appealed arguing the unsuitability finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly found mother "unsuitable" under Perales (award to parent would be detrimental) | L.Y.: evidence does not support finding of ongoing problematic behavior or likely harm; manifest weight favors mother | J.F./court: GAL reports, testimony, and history show ongoing risk, poor judgment, and inability to meet children's needs | Court: Affirmed—competent, credible evidence supports parental unsuitability |
| Whether lack of transportation/means alone justified unsuitability | L.Y.: lack of license/limited finances insufficient (Cantrell) | Court: Here lack of transportation combined with no adequate support likely to interfere with children's activities and recovery | Court: Contributed to finding of likely detriment |
| Whether past trauma/neglect evidence was admissible/useful after remand | L.Y.: earlier proceedings improperly relied on some interviews | J.F./GALs: prior reports and interviews considered properly on remand; substantive history is relevant to likely detriment | Court: Historical evidence admissible and probative; supports unsuitability finding |
| Whether magistrate/trial court abused discretion / judgment weighed incorrectly | L.Y.: court erred and decision was arbitrary/against manifest weight | Court: Deference due to factfinder’s credibility assessments and overall record | Court: No abuse of discretion; decision affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bechtol v. Bechtol, 49 Ohio St.3d 21 (trial court custody determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion standard explained)
- Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71 (broad trial court discretion in custody determinations)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (deference to trial court credibility assessments in custody cases)
- In re Perales, 52 Ohio St.2d 89 (Perales factor: parent unsuitable if award would be detrimental)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (parents’ fundamental liberty interest in custody)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (parental rights principles)
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (manifest-weight review requires competent, credible evidence)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (weight and credibility for trier of fact)