Court Filings

The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s rulings awarding legal custody of J.L. to the maternal grandmother. The appeal arose from a custody petition filed by the grandmother after the child’s mother died and subsequent interim-custody orders. The appellate court found challenges to the interim emergency orders moot because the juvenile court later made a final custody determination. The court upheld the juvenile court’s finding that the father was an unsuitable parent based on abandonment and detriment to the child, and it affirmed denial of the father’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief for failure to plead operative facts warranting relief.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed a juvenile court’s October 30, 2025 judgment granting legal custody of two children, K.M.H. and D.J.L.H., to their maternal grandparents. The grandparents had filed motions for custody after longstanding involvement with the children; a magistrate heard evidence in 2021, issued a decision in 2024, and after a status hearing in 2025 issued a new decision adopted by the trial court. The appellate court held the juvenile court had subject-matter jurisdiction, found the October 30, 2025 order final and appealable, and concluded no plain error invalidated the custody award because the magistrate expressly found awarding custody to the mother would be detrimental and considered the children’s best interests.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s grant of permanent custody of B.H. to the Montgomery County Department of Job and Family Services (MCCS). The child entered agency custody shortly after birth and, despite periods of compliance, Mother repeatedly relapsed into substance abuse, missed services, lost housing, and failed to maintain regular contact or visitation. The court found MCCS had custody for more than 12 of 22 consecutive months, made reasonable reunification efforts, and that permanent custody was in the child’s best interest given the need for a stable, legally secure placement with foster parents willing to adopt.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s decision awarding legal custody and residence of minor S.B. to her mother. Father, appearing pro se, had sought shared parenting and custody but the trial court and guardian ad litem concluded the parents could not communicate effectively or set aside personal disputes for the child’s benefit. The appellate court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining shared parenting was not feasible and in designating Mother as the residential parent after considering statutory best-interest factors and trial testimony.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s decision denying the father’s motion to modify parental rights and granting in part the mother’s modification requests. The dispute involved a 2016 parenting agreement naming mother residential custodian and the child’s wishes to live with father and play football at a different high school. The trial court found no material change in circumstances to justify changing custody to father but modified certain logistical terms (travel notice, single phone, sharing activity costs) as in the child’s best interest. The court also properly handled the guardian ad litem (GAL) report and fee requests.