In re B.B.

Ohio Court of Appeals

In re B.B.

DecidedApril 8, 2026

DocketC-250428

StatusPublished

This text of In re B.B. (In re B.B.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re B.B., (Ohio Ct. App. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

[Cite as In re B.B., 2026-Ohio-1268.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

IN RE: B.B. & R.W. : APPEAL NO. C-250428 TRIAL NO. F/16/2192 Z :

: JUDGMENT ENTRY :

This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, and appellant’s brief. For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal, allows no penalty, and orders that costs be taxed under App.R. 24. The court further orders that (1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and (2) the mandate be sent to the trial court for execution under App.R. 27.

To the clerk: Enter upon the journal of the court on 4/8/2026 per order of the court.

By:_______________________ Administrative Judge [Cite as In re B.B., 2026-Ohio-1268.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

IN RE: B.B. & R.W. : APPEAL NO. C-250428 TRIAL NO. F/16/2192 Z :

: OPINION :

Appeal From: Hamilton County Juvenile Court

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: April 8, 2026

Appellant Mother, pro se. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

CROUSE, Judge.

{¶1} Eight years ago, the Hamilton County Juvenile Court awarded legal

custody of B.B. and R.W. to father. The court suspended appellant mother’s parenting

time three years later, after R.W. suffered an unexplained, serious injury while in her

care. The order now on appeal denied mother’s motion to regain custody of B.B. and

R.W., in which mother contended that father had denied mother parenting time,

allowed the children to be injured, and neglected the children’s medical care. We

conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it found that mother

had failed to show changed circumstances that would justify a custody modification.

So we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

{¶2} B.B. and R.W. are the children of mother and father (collectively,

“parents”). B.B. was 11 years old and R.W. was 14 years old at the time of the

proceedings before the magistrate below. The juvenile court found that “R.W. is

diagnosed with autism, is non-verbal, and has cerebral palsy.”

A. Prior History

{¶3} The Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services

(“HCJFS”) became involved with the family in 2016, after an incident in which mother

used a taser on father in a grocery store in front of B.B. Both children were adjudicated

“dependent” in January 2017. HCJFS took temporary custody and placed the children

with their paternal grandmother. Two years later, father was awarded legal custody

with arrangements for parenting time for mother, per agreement.

{¶4} In March 2020, father filed to terminate mother’s parenting time. While

that motion was pending, R.W. suffered a traumatic injury while in mother’s care,

resulting in an orbital fracture around his eye and seizures. Following the incident,

3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

R.W. was hospitalized and placed on a ventilator. The same night, B.B. exhibited

bruising on her face. The causes of the children’s injuries remain unclear.

{¶5} Following a hearing on father’s motion, the magistrate suspended

mother’s parenting time. The juvenile court approved this order over mother’s

objections in a December 2021 order, which we affirmed in Wilfong v. Bush,

2023-Ohio-1256 (1st Dist.).

B. January 2025 Hearing

{¶6} Since the magistrate entered the December 2021 order, father has

maintained sole legal custody of the children. He has, during much of this period,

allowed B.B. and R.W. to stay with mother from time to time—though with decreasing

frequency, and not for several months prior to the hearing.

{¶7} In June 2024, mother moved for legal custody of B.B. and R.W. In

October, she moved to modify the court’s order regarding parenting time. Father did

not appear at the January 2025 hearing on these motions. Mother appeared pro se and

called two witnesses apart from herself.

{¶8} Mother’s first witness was the children’s maternal uncle. He testified

that he had never met or spoken with B.B. and R.W., but that he did not believe mother

to be a bad mother.

{¶9} The second witness was mother’s friend and neighbor, who said that she

had allowed B.B. and R.W. to play with her grandchildren while B.B. and R.W. were

in mother’s care. This neighbor testified that mother was a “great mother” and a

“Godly person,” and that she had never seen the children be aggressive or self-harm

while in mother’s care.

{¶10} When mother took the stand, she testified about her concerns that B.B.

and R.W. were being mistreated, injured, neglected, and/or denied proper medical

4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

care while with father.

{¶11} Some of mother’s evidence focused on an incident in November 2023,

when R.W. apparently became aggressive with paternal grandmother and B.B. Mother

was contacted, and mother, in turn, called 9-1-1. When officers arrived, R.W. was calm

and the officers were told that he would be taken to Cincinnati Children’s Hospital.

Mother introduced a police report of that incident.

{¶12} Mother also introduced a police report detailing an incident on June 14,

2024, during which B.B. refused to leave with father. Given father’s legal custody, this

created an issue. Mother called the police and all parties eventually agreed that B.B.

could go home with paternal grandmother.

{¶13} Mother offered other evidence and testimony that, when mother had

received B.B. and R.W. from father, mother had sometimes noticed small injuries and

wounds. The injuries included what mother referred to as burn marks on R.W.’s chest,

back, and wrist, as well as wounds on R.W.’s arms and legs. She also described a “knot”

on R.W.’s head and marks behind R.W.’s ears. Mother submitted photographs of these

injuries. Mother further averred that she had found fecal matter in R.W.’s hair and on

his person. She introduced photos allegedly showing this.

{¶14} Mother also offered evidence in support of her claim that father was not

providing proper medical care. For example, mother submitted a medical-visit

summary from B.B.’s physical on September 2, 2023, stating that the doctor had

recommended a follow-up in six months to address hormonal and development

concerns, “as dad denied referral.” The summary goes on to say that B.B. “[n]ever

came to app[ointment]t,” so the doctor provided a “referral to [an] Endo[crinologist]

for evaluation . . . per mother request.” Another medical-visit summary described

father taking B.B. to the endocrinologist “with mom on speaker phone” on September

5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

28, 2023. This summary also notes that B.B. expressed some “concern . . . in going

home with dad,” though the context for this sentence is not clear from the printout. A

September endocrinology summary stated that B.B. should follow up in six months.

But mother submitted a screenshot of her MyChart phone application, which showed

that had B.B. missed an endocrinology appointment in March 2024.

{¶15} Mother expressed similar concerns about R.W. missing medical

appointments. She produced a letter from West Side Pediatrics, captioned “1st No

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI