2019 Ohio 1547
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Child R.D.B., born 2006; mother died in 2015; maternal aunt (Aunt) took physical care of R.D.B. and his half-brother after mother’s death.
- Father learned he was biological parent when child was 4–5, paid child support, and had informal visitation; after mother’s death he sought custody.
- Magistrate held a custody hearing (Sept. 8, 2016) and granted legal custody to Father; Aunt objected and sought supplementary materials/extra time for objections.
- Trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision and, after delays (Aunt requested extensions; transcript and supplemental objections filed), entered final judgment awarding custody to Father (Aug. 14, 2018).
- Aunt appealed, arguing (1) custody should remain with Aunt under best-interest of the child, (2) Father is an unsuitable parent (lack of contact after Apr. 2017), and (3) trial court’s decision was against manifest weight and/or unduly delayed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should apply the “best interest of the child” standard in a parent vs. nonparent custody dispute | Aunt: best-interest analysis favors awarding custody to Aunt | Father/State: Per controlling precedent, parent’s constitutional rights require a parental-unsuitability analysis before awarding custody to a nonparent | Court: Best-interest standard not applicable; court must apply Perales parental-unsuitability standard |
| Whether Father is an unsuitable parent | Aunt: Father is unsuitable due to an incident at a barber shop, emotional distance, irregular visitation, and (on appeal) alleged post-hearing lack of contact | Father: Denies illicit conduct at barber shop, willing to change work schedule, has parent-child bond and provided support; no admissible evidence of post-hearing abandonment in record | Court: Record evidence at hearing did not show parental unsuitability; trial court did not abuse discretion in awarding custody to Father |
| Whether alleged post-hearing events (lack of contact) can be considered on appeal | Aunt: Father ceased contact after Apr. 2017, which would show unsuitability and prejudice from delay | Father/Record: No evidence of post-hearing conduct in the trial record; Aunt did not timely seek to introduce additional evidence under Juv.R. 40(D)(4) | Court: May not consider extraneous post-hearing allegations not in record; Aunt forfeited opportunity to present additional evidence and thus cannot rely on it on appeal |
| Whether the delay between hearing and final judgment prejudiced Aunt or rendered judgment improper | Aunt: Nearly two-year lapse prejudiced her because intervening events weren’t considered | Father: Delay was in part due to Aunt’s requests for transcript/extensions; no specific prejudice shown | Court: Delay alone not reversible; Aunt showed no prejudice and could have sought to supplement the record, so delay did not require reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (defines abuse-of-discretion standard for appellate review)
- In re Perales, 52 Ohio St.2d 89 (Ohio 1977) (a nonparent may obtain custody only after parent is shown unsuitable, abandoned, contractually relinquished custody, or totally incapable)
- In re Hockstok, 98 Ohio St.3d 238 (Ohio 2002) (clarifies parental constitutional liberty interest and procedural protections; best-interest standard applies only after custody determination, not in parent vs. nonparent initial contest)
- AAAA Enters., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redev. Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (Ohio 1990) (explains the meaning of abuse of discretion and appellate deference to trial-court reasoning)