In re T.J.T., 2017 Ohio 4279

Child (born 2009) lost mother to overdose in Jan 2016; father incarcerated. No custodian named in a will.
Grandmother (Appellant, Billitter) petitioned for custody two days after mother’s death; maternal aunt and her husband (Appellees, the Bruces) later petitioned for custody.
Guardian ad litem (GAL) interviewed the child, teachers, and parties; GAL reported a strong bond between child and grandmother and recommended against breaking that bond now.
Appellees offered a more traditional, financially stable home; grandmother lived in a camper, was older, but had been the child’s primary caretaker and was the child’s expressed preference.
Magistrate awarded legal custody to Appellees after a contested hearing and R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) best-interest analysis; trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision. Appellant appealed, arguing manifest weight/abuse of discretion.

Issue	Billitter's Argument	Bruces' Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by awarding custody to Appellees based on "future" stability rather than current circumstances	Court improperly prioritized Appellees’ long-term stability and material advantages over the child’s present needs and bonds	Court permissibly considered present evidence showing Appellees provide a more stable, nurturing environment; stability is relevant to best interest	No abuse of discretion; custody award affirmed
Whether the court failed to give appropriate weight to the child’s strong bond with grandmother and GAL recommendation against removal	Court ignored GAL and child’s expressed wish to remain with grandmother, causing likely emotional harm	GAL’s views and child’s bond were considered, but outweighed by overall best-interest factors favoring Appellees’ stability	No abuse of discretion; trial court reasonably weighed competing factors and did not clearly err

Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for manifest-weight review and deference to factfinder)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion requires decision that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable)
In re Bonfield, 97 Ohio St.3d 387 (2002) (juvenile court jurisdiction to decide custody claims brought by nonparents)
Seibert v. Seibert, 66 Ohio App.3d 342 (1990) (custody awards must focus on present circumstances, not mere future possibilities)
In re Pryor, 86 Ohio App.3d 327 (1993) (custody determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)