Tramontana v. Thacker, 2016 Ohio 862

Child born 2011; maternal grandfather Joseph Tramontana obtained temporary legal custody in 2012 after parents (Ashlee and Jeffrey Thacker) were incarcerated; both parents waived counsel and supported custody.
Thacker was convicted of felonious assault and imprisoned; he had not seen the child since she was two months old and retained residual parental rights.
In December 2014 Thacker moved pro se to amend the custody order to permit limited prison visitation or, alternatively, video/telephone contact; he argued he was rehabilitating and sought to establish a relationship before release.
The trial court held a hearing with Thacker and Tramontana (mother did not appear); Tramontana opposed in‑prison visitation citing the child’s youth, sensitivity, counseling status, and lack of awareness of her father, but expressed willingness to facilitate contact after Thacker’s release.
The trial court denied in‑prison visitation as not in the child’s best interest but ordered a graduated, supervised plan of contact (monthly letters escalating in frequency, counseling for child and custodians, parenting classes for father, possible video conferencing after six months and counselor recommendation) to prepare for the father’s release.
Tramontana appealed claiming the graduated plan—permitting incarcerated father communications—was unsupported by the record and harmful to the child.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by ordering a graduated introduction/communication plan between an incarcerated father and a young child who does not know him	Tramontana: plan permitting contact while father is incarcerated is not supported by the record and is not in child’s best interest	Thacker: retains residual parental rights and should be allowed structured contact to build a relationship prior to release	Court: affirmed trial court—denial of in‑prison visitation proper, but structured, gradual contact (letters, counseling, classes, later video) was within discretion and served child’s best interest

Appleby v. Appleby, 24 Ohio St.3d 39 (trial court discretion in parenting‑time decisions)
Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (appellate review of family court discretion)
In re Hall, 65 Ohio App.3d 88 (imprisonment for years can be extraordinary circumstance permitting denial of visitation)
Bodine v. Bodine, 38 Ohio App.3d 173 (trial court must act in child’s best interest when setting visitation)
State ex rel. Scordato v. George, 65 Ohio St.2d 128 (broad discretion over parenting time versus custody)