In re N.N.
2021 Ohio 3931
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Cuyahoga County Children Services removed five children after an older child (M.P.) suffered a head injury and Mother failed to explain or seek immediate care; agency also cited domestic-violence history, untreated mental-health issues, unstable housing, and hygiene/neglect concerns.
- Agency created a case plan for Mother (domestic-violence counseling, parenting, anger management, mental-health assessment, stable housing); Mother completed the plan.
- N.N. (age 3) was placed with Father; the agency had no concerns about Father and did not require him to complete a case plan.
- Agency moved to reunify and sought shared parenting with Mother as residential parent; Father moved for legal custody of N.N.
- At the dispositional hearing the social worker testified N.N. was doing well with Father; the guardian ad litem preferred shared parenting with Mother as custodial but acknowledged concerns about Mother’s ability to manage all five children.
- The magistrate (adopted by the juvenile court) awarded legal custody to Father to avoid disrupting N.N.’s stable placement; the court’s custody decision was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s/Agency’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether awarding legal custody to Father was against the manifest weight of the evidence / an abuse of discretion (i.e., not in child’s best interest) | Mother: she completed her case plan and therefore custody should be returned to her | Father/Agency: N.N. was thriving in Father’s care, agency had no concerns about Father, and Mother had not yet shown she could safely manage all five children | Court: affirmed — awarding legal custody to Father was supported by a preponderance of the evidence and was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (parents have constitutionally protected interest in raising children)
- Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71 (1988) (appellate review of custody decisions is for abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (1997) (trial court has broad discretion in family-custody decisions)
- In re Nice, 141 Ohio App.3d 445 (7th Dist. 2001) (legal-custody determinations are decided by preponderance of the evidence)
- In re C.C., 187 Ohio App.3d 365 (2010) (completion of a case plan is not dispositive on reunification)