Purvis v. Hazelbaker, 191 Ohio App. 3d 518

Background

The Adams County Juvenile Court awarded custody of B.P. to the paternal grandparents after finding Hazelbaker unsuitable.
Hazelbaker challenged the ruling, arguing the record lacked competent evidence that her custody would be detrimental to B.P.
The court’s unsuitability analysis referenced Perales and included some findings about Hazelbaker’s personal life and parenting history.
Remand proceedings occurred after this court’s prior reversal, with new evidence and guardian ad litem reports presented.
The appellate court ultimately reversed the decision, holding the trial court’s unsuitability finding was not supported by competent and credible evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly found Hazelbaker unsuitable under Perales	Hazelbaker argues evidence does not show detriment to B.P. if she retains custody.	Heatons contend Hazelbaker’s actions and parenting history demonstrate harm to B.P. if custody remains with Hazelbaker.	Yes; court abused discretion; record lacks sufficient detriment showing Hazelbaker unsuitable.
Whether withholding visitation supports detriment under unsuitability	Withholding visitation shows poor parental control and harms relationship with Heatons/ father.	Withholding was limited and not shown to cause detriment; period was brief and context varied.	No; withholding, by itself, not shown to cause detriment to B.P.
Whether alienation of Hazelbaker's other children supports unsuitability	Alienation evidence suggests unstable parenting affecting B.P.'s welfare.	Alienation findings relate to other children and lack proof of detriment to B.P. specifically.	No; alienation from other children alone does not prove detriment to B.P.
Whether the Heatons’ home environment justified the verdict under Perales	Heatons’ home being safe and stable supports Heatons as best placement.	Best interest findings are separate from Perales; unsuitable analysis must show detriment, not environment quality.	No; per Perales, home quality is not determinative of unsuitability; court erred in relying on Heatons’ home as evidence of detriment.
Whether nude photographs and Hazelbaker’s romantic history evidences detriment to B.P.	Mother’s past sexual conduct reflects poor judgment and risk to B.P.	No evidence shows B.P. suffered harm from her sexual conduct; no direct impact proven.	No; these factors do not demonstrate detriment to B.P. substantial enough to deem Hazelbaker unsuitable.

Key Cases Cited

In re Perales, 52 Ohio St.2d 89 (Ohio 1977) (parental unsuitability requires detriment to child before nonparent custody can be awarded)
In re Hockstok, 98 Ohio St.3d 238 (2002-Ohio-7208) (nonparent custody requires showing detriment to child; parents retain paramount rights)
In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (1990) (fundamental parental rights; custody decisions tightly constrained)
Reynolds v. Goll, 75 Ohio St.3d 121 (1996) (broad discretion in custody but cannot infringe without support in record)
C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (1978) (summary-judgment-like standard for evaluating sufficiency of evidence)
In re Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (1990) (per se rules for weighing evidence in custody matters)
In re Z.A.P., 177 Ohio App.3d 217 (2008) (illustrates fact patterns showing detriment in certain custody scenarios)