In re I.T.

[Cite as In re I.T., 2023-Ohio-3010.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
SENECA COUNTY

IN RE:

I.T., CASE NO. 13-23-05

ADJUDGED DEPENDENT CHILD.
OPINION
[AARON T. - APPELLANT]

IN RE:

A.T., CASE NO. 13-23-06

ADJUDGED DEPENDENT CHILD.
OPINION
[AARON T. - APPELLANT]

Appeals from Seneca County Common Pleas Court
Juvenile Division
Trial Court Nos. 22150099 and 22150100

Judgments Affirmed

Date of Decision: August 28, 2023

APPEARANCES:

Bradley N. Jeckering and Dalia G. Safadi for Appellant

Lisa A. Miller for Appellee
Case No. 13-23-05, 13-23-06

WALDICK, J.

{¶1} Father-appellant, Aaron T. (“Aaron”), brings these appeals from the

March 7, 2023 judgments of the Seneca County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile

Division, awarding legal custody of his minor children, A.T. and I.T., to their

mother, appellee Tiffany T. (“Tiffany”). For the reasons that follow we affirm the

judgment of the trial court.

Background

{¶2} After Aaron and Tiffany divorced, they had shared parenting of their

two children: A.T., born in May of 2007, and I.T., born in July of 2010. The parties

operated under that plan until the instant case was initiated by the Seneca County

Department of Job and Family Services (“SCDJFS”).

{¶3} On December 15, 2021, SCDJFS filed complaints alleging that A.T.

was a dependent and neglected child, and that I.T. was an abused, dependent and

neglected child after two alleged incidents wherein Aaron inappropriately touched

I.T. while his daughters were in his care. Regarding the first incident, it was alleged

that one night Aaron had been drinking alcohol and he went to sleep in his bedroom.

There was a bad storm that night and I.T. was scared so she went and slept in

Aaron’s bed with him. I.T. stated that at one point Aaron tried to put his hand down

her pants but I.T. pulled away. I.T. went downstairs and contacted Tiffany, telling

Tiffany that Aaron was “acting really weird” and that “[h]e tried to stick his hand

-2-
Case No. 13-23-05, 13-23-06

down [her] pants.” (Ex. III.) Tiffany told I.T. that Aaron would be fine when he

woke up in the morning, and that there was nothing to worry about. She told I.T. to

go back to sleep and that there was no “hurricane” coming (because I.T. was scared

of the storm). The next day, I.T. talked to Aaron about the incident and he said that

he was only rubbing her back or stomach. I.T. was interviewed by SCDJFS and she

opined that Aaron might have confused her for his girlfriend.

{¶4} The second incident occurred in December of 2021. At that time, Aaron

was sleeping on the couch and I.T. laid down with him. I.T. claimed that Aaron put

his arm around her, “rubbed her stomach and alongside her hips, and rubbed her

chest.” (Doc. No. 1). I.T. stated that Aaron was “making weird noises during this.”

(Id.) She believed Aaron had been drinking alcohol prior to this incident as well.

A.T. was at Aaron’s residence when both incidents allegedly occurred.

{¶5} The cases proceeded to adjudication on March 11, 2022, wherein the

parties agreed to enter admissions that the children were dependent pursuant to R.C.

2151.04(C) and the remaining allegations were dismissed. By further agreement,

the cases proceeded immediately to disposition, with the parties also agreeing that

Tiffany would have temporary custody of the children. Meanwhile, SCDJFS would

have protective supervision of the children and Aaron would exercise supervised

parenting time. Notably, as part of the disposition it was ordered that Aaron would

-3-
Case No. 13-23-05, 13-23-06

not consume any alcoholic beverages during any period of contact or access with

the children.

{¶6} On April 12, 2022, barely a month after disposition, Aaron filed a

motion to modify visitation and the matter was set for a hearing. On June 3, 2022,

Aaron filed a motion for in camera interviews of the children. This request was

denied because the hearing was only on the issue of modification of visitation and

because there was no indication that the children’s wishes contradicted those

expressed through the GAL who had been appointed for the children. After a

hearing on the issue of modification of visitation, the trial court elected to continue

the existing visitation schedule.

{¶7} Just days after the conclusion of the modification hearing, Aaron filed

a motion for legal custody of the children. Subsequently, Tiffany filed a motion for

legal custody of the children. A hearing on the motions for legal custody was held

over two dates: September 8, 2022, and November 7, 2022.

{¶8} On November 9, 2022, the magistrate presiding over the case issued a

decision summarizing the case’s history and all of the testimony provided by each

witness. The magistrate made factual findings and specifically found that the some

witnesses were not credible. After reviewing the evidence, the magistrate

recommended that Tiffany’s motion for legal custody of the children be granted,

and that Aaron’s motion be denied.

-4-
Case No. 13-23-05, 13-23-06

{¶9} Aaron filed objections to the magistrate’s decision, which were

reviewed by the trial court and ultimately overruled. After conducting an

independent review of the matter, the trial court denied Aaron’s motion for legal

custody, granted Tiffany’s motion for legal custody, and designated Tiffany as legal

custodian of the children. The trial court’s final entry was filed March 7, 2023. It is

from this judgment that Aaron appeals, asserting the following assignments of error

for our review.

First Assignment of Error

The trial court abused its discretion by failing to conduct an in
camera interview of the dependent children as mandated by Ohio
Revised Code § 3109.04(B).

Second Assignment of Error

The trial court abused its discretion by awarding legal custody of
the children to their mother against the preponderance of the
evidence.

Third Assignment of Error

A legal custody determination incident to an adjudication of
abuse, neglect, or dependency warrants a requirement that courts
consider the applicable statutory factors.

First Assignment of Error

{¶10} In his first assignment of error, Aaron argues that the trial court abused

its discretion by failing to hold an in camera interview of the children. He seems to

contend that the trial court should have conducted this interview prior to the hearing

-5-
Case No. 13-23-05, 13-23-06

on the pending motions for legal custody even though his only request for an in

camera interview of the children was prior to the June 6, 2022 hearing on Aaron’s

request for modification of visitation. We reject Aaron’s argument for multiple

reasons.

{¶11} First and foremost Aaron cites R.C. 3109.04(B) as support for his

argument that an in camera interview should have been conducted of the children

in this matter. However, R.C. 3109.04 concerns awarding parental rights and

responsibilities in a “divorce, legal separation, or annulment proceeding and in any

proceeding pertaining to the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities for the

child.” This statutory section does not control these proceedings because this action

is controlled by R.C. Chapter 2151 due to the fact it originated as a dependency

case. Thus Aaron’s reliance on R.C. 3109.04(B) is misplaced, and it does not

mandate anything here as he suggests.

{¶12} Second, and notwithstanding the first point, Aaron had no motion for

an in camera interview of the children pending at the time of the hearing on the

motions for legal custody. Aaron had made a motion for an in camera hearing prior

to the hearing for his motion for modification of visitation, but not prior to the final

hearing, and even his earlier motion was rejected by the trial court. He never made

a new motion for an in camera interview of the children prior to the legal custody

-6-
Case No. 13-23-05, 13-23-06

hearing. Where no motion was pending for an in camera interview, we can find no

error by the trial court for failing to conduct such an interview.

{¶13} Third, as the trial court suggested in its entry overruling the objections

to the magistrate’s decision, “there can be little impact in any failure to interview

the children as their interests were already represented by the Guardian Ad Litem”

in this matter. (Doc. No. 149). At the final hearing and in his report, the GAL

specifically indicated that the children wanted to spend more time with Aaron.

{¶14} Fourth, and finally, any wishes of the children, even if they were

different from those represented by the GAL, are given no greater weight than any

other element of a best interests analysis. In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 2007-Ohio-

1104, ¶ 57. Thus even if the trial court had interviewed the children, and the children

expressed wishes that were not similar to those represented by the GAL, this factor

alone would not override a holistic analysis of all the evidence, and we could find

no error here.

{¶15} For all of these reasons, Aaron’s first assignment of error is overruled.

Second Assignment of Error

{¶16} In Aaron’s second assignment of error, he argues that the trial court

abused its discretion by granting Tiffany’s motion for legal custody and denying his

motion for legal custody.

-7-
Case No. 13-23-05, 13-23-06

Standard of Review

{¶17} On appeal, we review the grant or denial of a motion for legal custody

under an abuse-of-discretion standard. In re B.P., 3d Dist. Logan Nos. 8-15-07 and

8-15-08, 2015-Ohio-5445, ¶ 21. An abuse of discretion implies that the court’s

decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d,

217, 219.

Legal Custody

{¶18} Ohio’s juvenile courts are statutory entities, and they are able to

exercise only those powers that the General Assembly confers on them. In re Z.R.,

144 Ohio St.3d 380, 2015-Ohio-3306, ¶ 14. Revised Code Chapter 2151 grants a

juvenile court exclusive original jurisdiction concerning a child alleged to be

abused, neglected, or dependent. In re A.D., 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-22-12, 2023-

Ohio-2442, ¶ 59.

{¶19} Following an adjudication of an abused, neglected, or dependent child,

R.C. 2151.353(A) provides the juvenile court with certain dispositional alternatives

for the child. Among the juvenile court’s dispositional alternatives is granting legal

custody of the child to either parent or to an individual who files a motion requesting

legal custody. R.C. 2151.353(A)(3); see also Juv.R. 34(D).

{¶20} The Revised Code defines “[l]egal custody” to mean

a legal status that vests in the custodian the right to have physical care
and control of the child and to determine where and with whom the

-8-
Case No. 13-23-05, 13-23-06

child shall live, and the right and duty to protect, train, and discipline
the child and to provide the child with food, shelter, education, and
medical care, all subject to any residual parental rights, privileges, and
responsibilities. An individual granted legal custody shall exercise the
rights and responsibilities personally unless otherwise authorized by
any section of the Revised Code or by the court.

R.C. 2151.011(A)(21).

{¶21} Importantly, “the award of legal custody is ‘not as drastic a remedy as

permanent custody.’” In re J.B., 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-15-79, 2016-Ohio-2670, ¶ 32,

quoting In re L.D., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-985, 2013-Ohio-3214, ¶ 7. Unlike

granting permanent custody, the award of legal custody does not divest parents of

their residual parental rights, privileges, and responsibilities. In re C.R., 108 Ohio

St.3d 369, 2006-Ohio-1191, ¶ 17. Significantly, the parents can generally petition

the court for a custody modification in the future. In re L.D. at ¶ 7. Thus, “a parent’s

right to regain custody is not permanently foreclosed.” In re B.P., 3d Dist. Logan

Nos. 8-15-07, 8-15-08, 2015-Ohio-5445, at ¶ 19.

{¶22} The standard a juvenile court uses in making its determination in a

legal-custody proceeding (by “preponderance of the evidence”) is less onerous than

a permanent-custody proceeding (by “clear and convincing evidence”). In re B.P.

at ¶ 19. Preponderance of the evidence means evidence that is more probable, more

persuasive, or of greater probative value. In re M.G., 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-18-54,

-9-
Case No. 13-23-05, 13-23-06

2019-Ohio-906, ¶ 7. At a dispositional hearing involving a request for legal custody,

the focus is on the best interest of the child.1 In re B.P. at ¶ 19.

{¶23} However, Revised Code 2151.353(A)(3) does not list specific factors

a court should consider in deciding what is in the child’s best interest pursuant to

the requested disposition of legal custody. In re B.P. at ¶ 20. Nevertheless, we have

previously concluded that juvenile courts may be guided by the factors listed in R.C.

2151.414(D)(1) (the permanent-custody factors) or R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) (factors

employed in private-custody disputes) since they may be instructive. In re L.P., 3d

Dist. Seneca Nos. 13-12-60 and 13-12-61, 2013-Ohio-2607, ¶ 22. In addition to the

foregoing factors, the juvenile court must also liberally interpret and construe R.C.

Chapter 2151 so as to effectuate the General Assembly’s expressed purpose when

considering which situation will best promote the child’s “care, protection, and

mental and physical development,” understanding that the child should only be

separated from his or her parents “when necessary for the child’s welfare or in the

interests of public safety.” In re C.W., 2010-Ohio-2157, at ¶ 11, citing R.C.

2151.01(A).

1
Notably, the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that a finding of parental unfitness is not a prerequisite to a
disposition of legal custody where a juvenile court is making a custody determination under R.C. 2151.353.
In re C.R. at ¶ 21; In re M.H., 3d Dist. Seneca Nos. 13-13-45 and 13-3-46, 2014-Ohio-1485, ¶ 15 (“[A] trial
court is not required to make a separate ‘unsuitability’ finding at disposition, because an adjudicatory finding
that a child is abused, neglected or dependent implicitly contains an unsuitability finding.”).

-10-
Case No. 13-23-05, 13-23-06

Analysis

{¶24} At the final hearing, there was extensive testimony regarding whether

Aaron had an issue with alcohol abuse. Aaron overdosed in 2018 on a combination

of sleeping pills and alcohol. Tiffany testified that Aaron’s alcohol use was a

significant issue that impacted their relationship when they were together, and she

testified that her children were worried about Aaron’s alcohol use as well. In fact,

Tiffany felt that the only reason the “improper touching” incidents happened was

because Aaron was intoxicated and he was confused. I.T. also opined that Aaron

was intoxicated and confused in her interview with SCDJFS about the first incident

wherein Aaron tried to put his hand down her pants.

{¶25} Due to the concerns regarding alcohol, during the pendency of this

case Aaron was evaluated twice for potential substance abuse issues: once by a

counselor and once by a forensic psychologist. On both occasions Aaron was not

diagnosed with an alcohol abuse issue. However, the forensic psychologist stated

that Aaron had an “alcohol problem,” it just was not significant enough to lead to a

specific diagnosis. We note that the evaluations of Aaron were based largely on

Aaron’s self-reporting of the amount of alcohol he consumed.

{¶26} Whether Aaron had issues with alcohol was pervasive in this case.

Testimony from essentially all of the witnesses, including Tiffany, indicated that

there was not an issue with Aaron exercising unsupervised parenting time with the

-11-
Case No. 13-23-05, 13-23-06

children so long as Aaron was not consuming alcohol. Aaron and his paramour

indicated that he had stopped consuming alcohol, but he had been observed at

multiple functions with alcohol. Further, Tiffany, and some of the other witnesses,

were concerned by the fact that Aaron had fought to be able to consume some

alcohol while the children were with him back when the shared parenting plan was

in place even though the original order stated that he should not consume alcohol.

Aaron thus seemed utterly unwilling to give up drinking alcohol, though he told I.T.

he would stop drinking alcohol the morning after the first inappropriate touching

incident was alleged to have occurred.

{¶27} While a significant portion of the testimony was dedicated to Aaron’s

alcohol use and its impact, there was also a significant amount of testimony

regarding the “improper touching” allegations that instituted this case, even though

the children had already been adjudicated dependent. Police reports were entered

into evidence and the interview that SCDJFS conducted with I.T. was entered into

evidence. Despite all of this, there is no indication that criminal charges were ever

filed against Aaron. Nevertheless, the allegations are troubling, regardless of

whether the incidents were prompted by alcohol use or they were the result of a

misunderstanding by Aaron.

{¶28} As to the children, by all accounts they were thriving with Tiffany as

their temporary custodian. In fact, the GAL, the forensic psychologist, and

-12-
Case No. 13-23-05, 13-23-06

caseworkers from SCDJFS all recommended that Tiffany’s motion for legal custody

be granted. Meanwhile, Aaron was still exercising supervised visitation at the final

hearing, though witnesses indicated he should have more parenting time with the

children.

{¶29} When reviewing the evidence as a whole, there is scant evidence

supporting Aaron’s motion for legal custody. The evidence generally indicated that

all of Aaron’s supervised visits were going well with the children, but Aaron would

have them neglect their homework at times.

{¶30} By contrast, the evidence affirmatively indicates that the children were

thriving in Tiffany’s temporary custody, and that while the children wanted to spend

more time with Aaron, serious allegations had been made against him. The trial

court determined that it was in the best interests of the children for Tiffany to be

granted legal custody, and after reviewing the record, we do not find the trial court’s

determination to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. See In re K.B., 3d

Dist. Hancock No. 5-20-37, 5-20-38, 2021-Ohio-3273, ¶ 46 (holding that where the

record does not demonstrate that the trial court’s decision on legal custody was

unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable, an affirmance is appropriate). Therefore,

Aaron’s second assignment of error is overruled.

-13-
Case No. 13-23-05, 13-23-06

Third Assignment of Error

{¶31} In his third assignment of error, Aaron argues that when a trial court

makes a legal custody determination there should be a requirement that the trial

court consider the “applicable statutory factors.” More specifically, he argues that

since there are no specific statutory factors that the legislature has codified to apply

to a motion for legal custody, we should force trial courts to elaborate on the factors

that may be relevant, such as those in R.C. 2151.414(D).2

{¶32} However, Aaron’s argument is clearly one that should properly be

directed to the legislature because he effectively wants us to codify legal

requirements that have not been made by the legislature. As a court generally has

no power to determine legislative policy, but rather power to interpret the effect of

a legislative act, this argument is improper. White v. Meyer, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga 66

Ohio App. 549 (1940). Because the remedy requested by Aaron is not properly

directed to this Court, his third assignment of error is overruled.3

2
We have addressed, and rejected, arguments in the past that a trial court erred by referencing the best interest
factors in R.C. 2151.414(D) and R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) when making a legal custody determination because the
statutes are not mandatory in legal custody proceedings. In re K.B., 3d Dist. Hancock No. 5-20-37, 5-20-38,
2021-Ohio-3273, ¶¶ 51-52.
3
We note that the trial court did cite the various revised code provisions that are generally persuasive in
determining motions for legal custody such as R.C. 2151.414(D) and R.C. 3109.04(F)(1). The trial court also
explicitly stated it had considered these factors. Thus it seems that Aaron wants the trial court to cite the
factors and make specific findings under each factor. While this might be a thorough policy, it is not
mandated.

-14-
Case No. 13-23-05, 13-23-06

Conclusion

{¶33} Having found no error prejudicial to Aaron in the particulars assigned

and argued, his assignments of error are overruled and the judgment of the Seneca

County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division, is affirmed.

Judgment Affirmed

MILLER, P.J. and WILLAMOWSKI, J., concur.

/jlr

-15-