2021 Ohio 3522
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Grandmother filed for legal custody in Greene C.P. Juvenile Ct.; child P.L.H. had lived with Grandmother since May 2016 under a grandparent power of attorney Father later revoked.
- P.L.H. is a child with special needs (autism spectrum disorder, PTSD, ODD, ADHD) and made substantial social, emotional, and academic progress while living with Grandmother (therapy, Youth Recovery Program, and attendance at Summit Academy).
- Father lived in Tennessee, enrolled P.L.H. in a Tennessee school, revoked the POA, and attempted to keep P.L.H. in Tennessee despite a July 31, 2018 court order to return her to Ohio; Father later turned the child over at the August 6, 2018 hearing.
- Guardian ad litem and school/therapy providers reported Grandmother’s active involvement in education and treatment; Father had minimal involvement (limited IEP participation, little contact with therapists, minimal financial support).
- Magistrate found that returning P.L.H. to Father would be detrimental given her progress and Father’s prior decision to remove her; juvenile court overruled objections and granted Grandmother legal custody. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Grandmother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in awarding legal custody to a non-parent without a finding of parental unsuitability | Father: He is a suitable parent (stable housing/employment, health insurance, bond with child); non-parent custody should not be awarded absent unsuitability | Grandmother: Awarding custody to Father would be detrimental to the child due to his lack of involvement, history of removing the child from services/school, and the child’s substantial progress in Grandmother’s care | Court: No abuse of discretion — evidence supported finding that returning the child to Father would be detrimental, so custody to Grandmother was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (defines abuse-of-discretion standard)
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (1990) (explains when a decision is unreasonable under abuse-of-discretion review)
- In re Perales, 52 Ohio St.2d 89 (1977) (holding a nonparent cannot be awarded custody without a finding that the parent is unsuitable or that custody to the parent would be detrimental)
- In re S.M., 160 Ohio App.3d 794 (2005) (approving grandparent custody where stability with grandparent and detriment from moving children justified nonparent award)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (trial court’s credibility determinations are entitled to deference)