2013 Ohio 1999
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Appellant M.H. appeals a juvenile-court custody decision affecting her four children and a fifth child not in this case.
- The Delaware County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division, awarded legal custody of I.E.J. and A.J. to two different foster families, and legal custody with protective supervision of W.A.J. and S.J.J. to their natural father, with appellee being the Delaware County DJFS.
- The case traces long-standing concerns of safety, parental mental illness, and parenting-ability, including prior removals and bruising investigations.
- The trial proceeded over a lengthy period with a 15-day trial in 2011-2012; GAL moved for legal custody to foster families; one child (R.D.J.) was returned to the father.
- The court ultimately denied permanent custody for the older children and granted legal custody to foster families for I.E.J. and A.J., while keeping W.A.J. and S.J.J. with their father under protective supervision.
- Father dismissed his appeal; mother appeals two discrete legal- custody-related issues and argues the disposition was against the weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by awarding legal custody to two separate foster families under RC 2151.353 | M.H. argues timing, lack of signed statements, and absence of caretakers at parts of hearing. | The court did not abuse its discretion; timing/waivers were waived or not error; guardians testified to willingness. | No abuse of discretion; evidence supports custody to foster families. |
| Whether it was proper to keep W.A.J. and S.J.J. under protective supervision while awarding custody to the father | DJFS/parents contend the court lacked authority to split orders and keep supervision. | RC 2151.353 allows multiple dispositions; keeping supervision is permissible. | Appropriate under RC 2151.353; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Gales, 10th Dist. No. 03AP–445, 2003–Ohio–6309 (Ohio App. 10th Dist. 2003) (abuse of discretion standard in custody determinations; non-terminal custody when not permanent)
- In re Nice, 141 Ohio App.3d.445, 455, 751 N.E.2d 552 (Ohio App. 2001) (pregnant standard: custody not permanent; preponderance standard in custody)
- In re A.W.-G., 12th Dist. No. CA2003–04–099, 2004–Ohio–2298 (Ohio App. 12th Dist. 2004) (legal custody burden of proof is preponderance; not clear and convincing)
- In re Law, 5th Dist. No.2003 AP 06 45, 2004–Ohio–117 (Ohio App. 5th Dist. 2004) (review of custody decisions; standard of appellate review)
- In re C.B., 129 Ohio St.3d, 231, 2011-Ohio-2899, 951 N.E.2d 398 (Ohio 2011) (finality of orders when agency’s motion to modify is denied; supports affirmance of disposition)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion requires more than error of law or judgment)
- In re A.V.O., 2012-Ohio-4092 (9th Dist. 2012) (waiver/plain-error analysis when not objected to at trial)