Wentz v. Wideman, 2021 Ohio 2257

Two minor children (O.H., born 2016; J.H., born 2020) are the biological children of Abigail Wideman and the late Matthew Hudson (father died June 22, 2019). The children reside with mother Wideman.
Paternal grandparents Jodi and Gregory Wentz filed for grandparent visitation on October 4, 2019; they had regular contact with O.H. until about July 2018 and never met J.H.
A magistrate recommended supervised in-person visitation twice monthly; the guardian ad litem opposed in-person visitation but suggested virtual visits as a way to build a relationship.
The juvenile court modified the magistrate’s order, permitting the Wentzes to send cards/gifts through Wideman and to have twice-monthly video chats of at least 15 minutes; the court declined to consider an affidavit the mother challenged as improper.
Wideman appealed, arguing (1) the trial court abused its discretion in awarding visitation and misapplied the statutes/precedent, and (2) R.C. 3109.11 is unconstitutional as applied; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Wideman)	Defendant's Argument (Wentzes)	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding grandparent visitation under R.C. 3109.11	Court failed to give "special weight" to fit parent's wishes; shifted burden to mother; should require a disruptive precipitating event and the Wentzes had "abandoned" the children	Trial court gave special weight to mother's wishes, considered the statutory best-interest factors and lack of contact as one factor, and tailored a minimal order	No abuse of discretion; limited video visitation affirmed
Whether R.C. 3109.11 is unconstitutional as applied (infringes parental due process rights)	Statute is unconstitutional here because grandparents abandoned relationship, the predicate event did not cause the breach, and the statute was not narrowly tailored or respectful of mother's rights	State has a compelling interest in protecting a child's best interests and maintaining grandparent-grandchild relationships; statute has been upheld and the court's minimal video order is narrowly tailored	Statute is constitutional as applied; minimal visitation narrowly tailored to compelling interest

In re Whitaker, 36 Ohio St.3d 213, 522 N.E.2d 563 (recognition that grandparent visitation depends on statute and may serve child’s best interest)
Harrold v. Collier, 107 Ohio St.3d 44, 836 N.E.2d 1165 (statute R.C. 3109.11 constitutional on its face; fit parent’s wishes entitled to special weight)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (parental right to make child-rearing decisions is a fundamental right)
In re Martin, 68 Ohio St.3d 250, 626 N.E.2d 82 (grandparents’ visitation rights derive from statute)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (abuse-of-discretion standard defined)
DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212 (credibility and weight of evidence reserved to trier of fact)
In re T.R., 52 Ohio St.3d 6, 556 N.E.2d 439 (state’s interest in child’s best interest)
Belden v. Union Central Life Ins. Co., 143 Ohio St. 329, 55 N.E.2d 629 (burden on challenger to prove statute unconstitutional)
In re K.M.-B., 48 N.E.3d 998 (appellate guidance applying abuse-of-discretion review in grandparent visitation cases)