T.A.J. v. G.L.D. (In Re D.D.)
100 N.E.3d 141
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Father (G.D.) and mother divorced in 2014; mother received sole custody and father limited supervised visitation for reasons not shown in record. Child born June 2007; mother died January 2, 2016.
- After mother’s death both paternal father and maternal uncle (T.J.) petitioned juvenile court for custody; bench trial held and juvenile court awarded custody to the uncle, finding father "unsuitable." Father received expanded visitation.
- The court’s unsuitability finding rested on the child’s intense fear, hatred, and lack of bond with father (including statements that father should die and anxiety manifesting as bedwetting), and professional testimony that placement with father could harm the child’s psychological development.
- Counselors testified father complied with treatment and visitation, but the child resisted bonding—possibly reinforced by mother and uncle before mother’s death—so therapists expressed little confidence that forcing placement with father would improve the child’s wellbeing.
- No criminal convictions, abuse allegations, substance abuse, or inability to provide a home were shown for father; the unsuitability finding was based on emotional/psychological detriment to this specific child at this time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (T.J.) | Defendant's Argument (G.D.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile court abused discretion in finding father unsuitable under Perales (custody to non-parent) | The child’s documented fear, lack of bond, trauma symptoms, and therapist opinions show awarding custody to father would be detrimental to child. | The court improperly focused on potential future harm and the child’s preferences, essentially delegating the custody decision to the child; father has done everything required and is fit. | Court: No abuse of discretion; unsuitability found because awarding custody to father would be detrimental to the child given emotional/psychological harm evidence. |
| Whether best-interest factors apply before unsuitability found | N/A (court required unsuitability determination before business of best-interest analysis). | N/A | Court followed Perales: must find unsuitability before applying R.C. 3109.04 factors when comparing parent vs nonparent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (parental custody is a fundamental liberty interest)
- In re Perales, 52 Ohio St.2d 89 (1977) (nonparent award requires proof parent is unfit, unsuitable, or custody would be detrimental)
- Reynolds v. Goll, 75 Ohio St.3d 121 (1996) (trial court has broad discretion in custody determinations)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (1997) (appellate review of custody decisions is deferential because trial court observes demeanor)
- Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71 (1988) (trial court has wide latitude in allocating parental rights)