Southern v. Scheu
2018 Ohio 1440
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Parents Shanice Southern and Scott Scheu shared an agreed custody order from 2010; Scheu filed a petition to reallocate parental rights and an emergency ex parte temporary custody motion in March 2017.
- Scheu’s motion was supported by affidavits (Scheu, his parents, sister) and records alleging Southern’s live‑in boyfriend, Abdul Kargbo, physically abused their child A.S. and had a significant criminal history.
- The Juvenile Court granted an ex parte temporary custody order to Scheu on March 10, 2017.
- Southern moved to transfer venue to Franklin County (where she and alleged incidents were located); the court denied the motion.
- Guardian ad litem interviewed the child and parties; the child reported fear and specific abuse by Kargbo; GAL recommended custody to Scheu if he lived with his parents.
- After a July 31, 2017 hearing, the trial court modified custody on August 30, 2017, awarding custody to Scheu while he resided with his parents; Southern appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority for ex parte temporary custody | Southern: court lacked authority to issue ex parte order | Scheu: juvenile court has authority under Juv.R.13 and continuing jurisdiction | Court: court had authority under Juv.R.13 and continuing jurisdiction; no abuse of discretion |
| Abuse of discretion in issuing ex parte order | Southern: issuance was improper and arbitrary | Scheu: affidavits and records showed immediate risk to child | Court: affidavits, records, and allegations justified ex parte relief; no abuse |
| Denial of motion to transfer venue | Southern: case and events occurred in Franklin County, so transfer required | Scheu: he resided in Shelby County; Shelby had continuing jurisdiction | Court: transfer discretionary; Shelby was proper given continuing jurisdiction and Scheu’s residence; denial not an abuse |
| Modification of custody (best interest / change of circumstances) | Southern: she should retain custody; change was not substantial | Scheu: Southern’s cohabitation with Kargbo and child’s reports were a substantial change warranting modification | Court: found a substantial change (child’s reported abuse and Kargbo’s history); after weighing R.C.3109.04(F) factors (including child’s fear and criminal histories), modification awarding custody to Scheu (while living with parents) was in child’s best interest; no abuse |
Key Cases Cited
- Havel v. Villa St. Joseph, 963 N.E.2d 1270 (Ohio 2012) (distinguishing procedural rulemaking authority and legislative substantive law)
- Fisher v. Hasenjager, 876 N.E.2d 546 (Ohio 2007) (two‑step analysis for modifying custody—change in circumstances and best interest)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 674 N.E.2d 1159 (Ohio 1997) (change in circumstances must be substantial and materially affect the child)
- In re Z.R., 44 N.E.3d 239 (Ohio 2015) (venue is procedural and concerns geographic location for hearing)
- Brammer v. Brammer, 955 N.E.2d 453 (Ohio App. 2011) (appellate deference to trial court child‑custody determinations supported by credible evidence)