In re C.D.

2024 Ohio 6047

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in In re C.D.. Read the opinion of the Court — 2024 Ohio 446 →

Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided December 27, 2024·No. S-24-005·Published

Opinion

[Cite as In re C.D., 2024-Ohio-6047.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SANDUSKY COUNTY

In re C.D. Court of Appeals Nos. S-24-005

Trial Court Nos. JC22230020

DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Decided: December 27, 2024

***** Christopher M. Marcinko, for appellee.

Robert P. Soto, for appellant. *****

{¶ 1} This is an appeal from the judgment by the Sandusky County Court of

Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, which overrode the objections by defendant-appellant

mother, A.D.,1 to the magistrate’s decision granting plaintiff-appellee maternal

grandmother, R.P., companionship time with the minor child, C.D. For the reasons set

forth below, this court reverses the judgment of the juvenile court.

1 Later in the record mother is referred to as A.S., due to her marriage two weeks after appellee filed the complaint. I. Background

{¶ 2} This matter commenced on January 31, 2022, upon the filing by appellee of

a complaint for grandparent visitation as being in the best interest of C.D. pursuant to

R.C. 3109.12(A), which relevantly states “If a child is born to an unmarried woman, the

parents of the woman . . . may file a complaint requesting the court of common pleas of

the county in which the child resides to grant them reasonable companionship or

visitation rights with the child.” Appellee alleged that appellant was the natural mother of

C.D., both residing in Sandusky County, and that appellee was the maternal grandmother

of C.D. Appellee alleged that appellant was unmarried, and the father of C.D. was

unknown. Appellee further alleged that she provided appellant and C.D. “with a home,

food, and physical and emotional support for the first two years of his life and is a

caregiver and trusted confidant and support for the child.”

{¶ 3} After mediation and pre-trial negotiations failed, the matter proceeded to

trial before a magistrate on December 2, 2022. The magistrate heard testimony from five

witnesses and admitted 13 exhibits into evidence. Appellant did not challenge the

juvenile court’s subject-matter jurisdiction prior to or at the trial. On December 6, the

magistrate issued a decision with 25 findings of fact and conclusions of law, including a

review of the factors stated in R.C. 3109.051(D)(1)-(16). The magistrate decided: (1) to

grant appellee’s complaint for grandparent visitation with C.D., (2) to set the

companionship for “one weekend per month from Friday at 7:00 PM to Sunday at 8:00

PM,” (3) to order that appellee “shall provide transportation to and from the

companionship,” and (4) to order that appellee “shall pay the costs of this action.”

2. {¶ 4} Appellant timely objected, with supplement, to the magistrate’s decision for

three reasons: (1) appellee’s companionship time with C.D. was not in the child’s best

interests, (2) the magistrate’s decision and findings were not supported by the weight of

the evidence of her parental wishes against visitation, and (3) the juvenile court lacked

subject-matter jurisdiction to order the grandparent visitation.

{¶ 5} Appellee opposed appellant’s objections. Appellee argued the weight of the

evidence favored granting the complaint under R.C. 3109.12. Appellant’s testimony

confirmed the loving relationship C.D. had with appellee and her husband. Appellant

admitted that neither grandparent would harm C.D. and that the grandparents had “too

good of a relationship” with C.D. while appellant worked and was in their care. Appellee

further argued the juvenile court, a division of the Sandusky County Court of Common

Pleas, had subject matter jurisdiction because appellant’s reliance on In re Gibson, 61

Ohio St.3d 168 (1991) was misplaced as it was decided 10 years before the enactment of

R.C. 3109.12. Appellee further argued that this court has repeatedly upheld a juvenile

court’s jurisdiction to determine grandparent visitations under R.C. 3109.12, citing In re

K.M.-B., 2015-Ohio-4626 (6th Dist.); Wentz v. Wideman, 2021-Ohio-2257 (6th Dist.); In

re A.M., 2022-Ohio-4305 (6th Dist.); and In re A.R., 2023-Ohio-394 (6th Dist.).

{¶ 6} On February 12, 2024, the juvenile court filed its judgment entry approving

and adopting the magistrate’s December 6, 2022 decision, after independently

considering the record, including appellant’s objections. The trial court overruled each of

appellant’s objections. As to appellant’s first objection,

3. [U]pon the independent review of the Court’s file, transcripts, and pleadings, along with all information, evidence, and arguments contained therein, the Court, upon the appropriate application of the standards and law, comes to the same conclusion as that of the assigned Magistrate. . . being that the requested grandparent visitation is in the best interest of the minor child in this case.

{¶ 7} As to appellant’s second objection,

On the matter of the weight of the evidence. . . A review of the decision under scrutiny would show that the Magistrate listed each of the relevant factors from Ohio Revised Code section 3109.051(D)(1)(-(16), as well as his impressions from the trial that were taken into consideration.

{¶ 8} As to appellant’s third objection,

As to the lack of jurisdiction, this Court finds that argument not well taken, based upon the various applicable statutes and case law; as also argued in the Grandmother’s responsive pleading. This Court clearly has subject matter jurisdiction to determine grandparent visitation under the circumstances of this case.

{¶ 9} The trial court then ordered: (1) to grant appellee’s complaint for

grandparent visitation with C.D., (2) to set the companionship for “one weekend per

month from Friday at 7:00 PM to Sunday at 8:00 PM,” (3) to order that appellee “shall

provide transportation to and from the companionship,” and (4) to order that appellee

“shall pay the costs of this action” while also ordering “No costs shall be assessed for this

matter, which is now closed.”

{¶ 10} Appellant timely appealed the juvenile court’s judgment setting forth two

assignments of error:

1. The trial court’s decision was against the manifest weight of the

evidence.

4. 2. The trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.

{¶ 11} We will first address appellant’s second assignment of error, which is

dispositive of this appeal.

II. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

{¶ 12} In support of her second assignment of error, appellant argues that where

the juvenile court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to grant appellee grandparent

visitation with C.D., that order is void. Appellant relies on In re Gibson and on In re

C.W., 2020-Ohio-2660 (9th Dist.) to argue the juvenile court’s subject-matter jurisdiction

is limited to the custody of children under R.C. 2151.23(A)(2), which does not include

grandparent visitation of an unwed mother’s child under R.C. 3109.12. R.C.

2151.23(A)(2) states, “The juvenile court has exclusive original jurisdiction under the

Revised Code as follows: . . . (2) subject to [R.C. 2301.03(G), (I), (K), and (M)2], to

determine the custody of any child not a ward of another court of this state.”

{¶ 13} Appellant also relies on State ex rel. Jones v. Paschke, 2023-Ohio-1536

(11th Dist.), aff’d, 2024-Ohio-135, to argue that “visitation” (and the related concept

“companionship”) under R.C. 3109.12 is a distinct legal concept from “custody” under

R.C.

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