In re R.J.E.
2017 Ohio 886
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Grandparents Stephen and Lori Evans filed a motion (Sept. 2015) seeking legal custody of their grandson, R.J.E. (age ~3½). The child’s mother, Brandi Ollice, was the legal custodian but was incarcerated for violating probation related to felony drug possession.
- Paternal grandparents Donna and Ronald Park intervened and also moved for custody. The child’s father (son of Donna Park) had active warrants, post-release control violations, and recent criminal charges; his whereabouts were uncertain.
- Guardian ad litem (GAL) investigated, reported the child was born drug-exposed, has medical and speech delays, and recommended custody to the Evans while advising supervised visitation for both parents. The GAL noted the Parks had allowed the father to live in their home while using drugs, suggesting enabling behavior.
- At the custody hearing the GAL testified and highlighted his report; parties were allowed to submit questions through the court but did not cross-examine the GAL. The trial court awarded legal custody to the Evans, liberal visitation to the Parks, and supervised visitation to both parents.
- The Parks (and mother as a supporter) appealed, raising four assignments of error: alleged failure to find parental unfitness, characterization of the custody award as temporary, reliance on the GAL report without oral testimony/cross-examination, and that the decision was against the manifest weight / unsupported by evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by awarding custody to non-parents without explicit finding of parental unsuitability | Mother/Parks: Court needed explicit finding of parental unfitness before awarding custody to Evans | Evans: Court’s findings about parents’ drug use, criminality, incarceration implicitly show unsuitability; Perales test met | Court: Implicit findings satisfied Perales; parents were unsuitable and award to non-parents proper |
| Standing to raise arguments on behalf of another parent | Mother: Urged errors supporting Parks’ claim for custody | Evans: A party must assert its own rights on appeal; mother who didn’t seek custody lacks standing | Court: Mother lacked standing to raise issues solely for Parks; Parks themselves intervened and have standing to appeal |
| Whether custody was improperly treated as permanent and mother misinformed re: right to case plan | Parks: Trial court treated custody as effectively permanent and mischaracterized mother’s rights | Evans: Legal custody (non-termination) differs from permanent custody; parent retains residual rights and may seek return later | Court: Trial court correctly distinguished legal custody from termination/permanent custody; mother retains ability to request return; no error |
| Whether court erred in considering GAL report without oral repetition/cross-examination | Parks: GAL report was used as factual basis without required oral testimony and parties were denied cross-examination | Evans: GAL testified and was made available; parties waived cross-examination by not exercising it | Court: GAL’s report may be considered; GAL testified and was available for cross-examination (parties waived it); no plain error |
| Whether custody decision was against manifest weight / unsupported by evidence | Parks: Evidence favored awarding custody to Parks (mother recommended Parks), GAL report inadmissible | Evans: GAL and witnesses supported findings that Evans provided more stable home and Parks enabled father | Court: Credible evidence (GAL + testimony + undisputed facts about parents’ substance abuse/criminality and Parks’ enabling) supports custody to Evans; not against manifest weight |
Key Cases Cited
- Perales v. Caspari, 52 Ohio St.2d 89 (Ohio 1977) (non-parent custody requires finding that award to parent would be detrimental)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1997) (plain-error doctrine in civil cases is rarely applied; extremely narrow)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (standard for manifest-weight review and when appellate reversal is warranted)
- Stores Realty Co. v. Cleveland, 41 Ohio St.2d 41 (Ohio 1975) (appellate court will not consider issues not raised in trial court)
- Baker v. Baker, 113 Ohio App.3d 805 (9th Dist. 1996) (parental suitability may be implicitly found; explicit wording not constitutionally mandated)
- Nice v. Nice, 141 Ohio App.3d 445 (7th Dist. 2001) (distinguishing legal custody from permanent custody; evidentiary standard and residual parental rights differ)