[Cite as In re D.L., 2023-Ohio-1125.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
IN RE: D.L. : APPEAL NO. C-220448 TRIAL NO. F20-151Z :
:
: O P I N I O N.
Appeal From: Hamilton County Juvenile Court
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: April 5, 2023
Roger W. Kirk, for Appellant Father,
Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Patsy Bradbury, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services,
Robert Adam Hardin, Guardian Ad Litem for D.L. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
BOCK, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant Father challenges the juvenile court’s order granting legal
custody of his son, D.L., to Maternal Grandmother. Father argues that the record lacks
competent and credible evidence showing that awarding Maternal Grandmother
custody of D.L. was in the child’s best interest. For the following reasons, we disagree
with Father and affirm the juvenile court’s judgment.
I. Facts and Procedure
{¶2} In February 2020, Mother gave birth to D.L. shortly before she
tragically succumbed to a gunshot wound. Mother left behind another child, D.L.’s
half-sister (“Sister”). Like Mother, Sister’s father was a victim of gun violence.
{¶3} Days after Mother’s death, the Hamilton County Department of Job and
Family Services (“HCJFS”) obtained a temporary custody order for Sister. One week
later, Father agreed to place D.L. in HCJFS’s temporary custody. In a complaint,
HCJFS alleged that D.L. and Sister were dependent under R.C. 2151.04(B) and (C).
The complaint noted that Father was “believed to have been the target of the shooter
on 2/2/20” and Father was convicted of multiple felonies from 2008 to 2013.
Eventually, Maternal Grandmother was awarded legal custody of Sister. At a
dependency hearing, Father stipulated to the facts in the complaint. Following a
hearing, the juvenile court adjudicated D.L. dependent.
{¶4} Father requested custody of D.L. and completed his case-plan services.
In July 2021, the magistrate terminated HCJFS’s temporary custody of D.L., awarded
Father legal custody of D.L., and granted Maternal Grandmother visitation rights. The
magistrate’s findings were minimal, but HCJFS noted that “Father has established a
bond with his child” and had “unsupervised weekend visits with no reported
concerns.” HCJFS’s supervision of D.L. concluded on September 13, 2021. 2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶5} But the following week, the court granted temporary custody of D.L. to
HCJFS because Father had been arrested and jailed for carrying a concealed weapon
and having a weapon under a disability. The magistrate noted, “HCJFS attempted a
Safety Plan but [Father] was unavailable due to being in a restrictive medical until [sic]
due to a medical complication.” In the ensuing months, both Paternal and Maternal
Grandmothers petitioned for custody of D.L. In December 2021, the magistrate
adjudicated D.L. dependent “[b]ased upon the clear and convincing evidence
presented and the stipulations entered.” Relevant here, the parties stipulated that
Father was incarcerated awaiting trial for his firearm-related felony charges.
{¶6} At the disposition hearing, Patricia Waller, D.L.’s HCJFS caseworker,
testified that HCJFS requested custody out of concern that Father’s pending firearm-
related charges jeopardized his ability to parent D.L. In addition, she noted that Father
lacked financial stability and “his own individual housing.” She explained that Father
had been evicted in December 2021 and was living with someone but had no further
information without a background check or home study. And she stated that Kroger
had fired Father after it learned of his criminal history. Waller acknowledged that
Father had completed the case-plan services recommended to him following Mother’s
death and that he was consistent with visitation. But she testified that his ongoing legal
issues complicated her ability to recommend future case-plan services. Rather, the
post-arrest case plan directed Father to contact a support program to assist him with
his unemployment and housing issues.
{¶7} Father acknowledged his criminal charges and related legal issues but
testified that he anticipated that the case would be resolved “within the next court date
or two.” Father explained that housing had never been an issue before his recent arrest
and pretrial incarceration, which ultimately caused his eviction. He clarified his living 3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
arrangements and lack of home study—while he had been living in his significant
other’s house with her family, he did not ask HCJFS to complete a home study of her
house because of alleged complications with having his sister fingerprinted.
{¶8} Waller explained that D.L. had lived with Maternal Grandmother for
most of his life, where he was “a happy two-year-old child.” She described D.L.’s bond
with Sister and his aunt, who both live with Maternal Grandmother. Finally, Waller
explained that HCJFS disapproved a placement with Paternal Grandmother because
the home-study report indicated she failed to acknowledge Father’s criminal history.
Yet, Paternal Grandmother recalled that there was little conversation about Father’s
criminal history during the home study. The home study report recommending D.L.’s
placement with Maternal Grandmother, as well as the home-study report advising
against placing D.L. with Paternal Grandmother, were entered into the evidence.
{¶9} Following the hearing, the magistrate determined that awarding
Maternal Grandmother legal custody of D.L. was in the child’s best interest. Father
objected and, after a brief hearing, the juvenile court denied Father’s objection and
analyzed the best-interest factors in both R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) and 3109.05(F)(1). The
court found that Father “has a lengthy history of court involvement,” and “continued
to rack up criminal charges in multiple counties since HCJFS was once again awarded
custody, stemming from Father’s 2021 arrest.” The court relied on Waller’s testimony
that Father was unemployed and lacked stable housing.
{¶10} Beginning with D.L.’s interaction and relationships, the juvenile court
found that D.L. was placed with Maternal Grandmother from birth, and “apart from a
few months Father regained Custody [sic],” D.L. remained in her care along with his
sibling. See R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a). Turning to D.L.’s custodial history, the juvenile
court found that D.L. had been in HCJFS’s custody for 27 months out of the past 31 4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
months. See R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(c). Regarding D.L.’s need for secure, permanent
housing, the juvenile court found that Maternal Grandmother had permanent housing
and Father had no independent housing. See R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(d).
{¶11} While the juvenile court acknowledged Father’s desire to regain custody
and his consistent visitation with D.L., it found that D.L. had a close bond with
Maternal Grandmother and Sister. See R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(a)-(c). The juvenile court
found that D.L. was adjusted to life with Maternal Grandmother, who provides “a
stable and safe living environment” for him. See R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(d). And it found
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as In re D.L., 2023-Ohio-1125.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
IN RE: D.L. : APPEAL NO. C-220448 TRIAL NO. F20-151Z :
:
: O P I N I O N.
Appeal From: Hamilton County Juvenile Court
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: April 5, 2023
Roger W. Kirk, for Appellant Father,
Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Patsy Bradbury, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services,
Robert Adam Hardin, Guardian Ad Litem for D.L. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
BOCK, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant Father challenges the juvenile court’s order granting legal
custody of his son, D.L., to Maternal Grandmother. Father argues that the record lacks
competent and credible evidence showing that awarding Maternal Grandmother
custody of D.L. was in the child’s best interest. For the following reasons, we disagree
with Father and affirm the juvenile court’s judgment.
I. Facts and Procedure
{¶2} In February 2020, Mother gave birth to D.L. shortly before she
tragically succumbed to a gunshot wound. Mother left behind another child, D.L.’s
half-sister (“Sister”). Like Mother, Sister’s father was a victim of gun violence.
{¶3} Days after Mother’s death, the Hamilton County Department of Job and
Family Services (“HCJFS”) obtained a temporary custody order for Sister. One week
later, Father agreed to place D.L. in HCJFS’s temporary custody. In a complaint,
HCJFS alleged that D.L. and Sister were dependent under R.C. 2151.04(B) and (C).
The complaint noted that Father was “believed to have been the target of the shooter
on 2/2/20” and Father was convicted of multiple felonies from 2008 to 2013.
Eventually, Maternal Grandmother was awarded legal custody of Sister. At a
dependency hearing, Father stipulated to the facts in the complaint. Following a
hearing, the juvenile court adjudicated D.L. dependent.
{¶4} Father requested custody of D.L. and completed his case-plan services.
In July 2021, the magistrate terminated HCJFS’s temporary custody of D.L., awarded
Father legal custody of D.L., and granted Maternal Grandmother visitation rights. The
magistrate’s findings were minimal, but HCJFS noted that “Father has established a
bond with his child” and had “unsupervised weekend visits with no reported
concerns.” HCJFS’s supervision of D.L. concluded on September 13, 2021. 2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶5} But the following week, the court granted temporary custody of D.L. to
HCJFS because Father had been arrested and jailed for carrying a concealed weapon
and having a weapon under a disability. The magistrate noted, “HCJFS attempted a
Safety Plan but [Father] was unavailable due to being in a restrictive medical until [sic]
due to a medical complication.” In the ensuing months, both Paternal and Maternal
Grandmothers petitioned for custody of D.L. In December 2021, the magistrate
adjudicated D.L. dependent “[b]ased upon the clear and convincing evidence
presented and the stipulations entered.” Relevant here, the parties stipulated that
Father was incarcerated awaiting trial for his firearm-related felony charges.
{¶6} At the disposition hearing, Patricia Waller, D.L.’s HCJFS caseworker,
testified that HCJFS requested custody out of concern that Father’s pending firearm-
related charges jeopardized his ability to parent D.L. In addition, she noted that Father
lacked financial stability and “his own individual housing.” She explained that Father
had been evicted in December 2021 and was living with someone but had no further
information without a background check or home study. And she stated that Kroger
had fired Father after it learned of his criminal history. Waller acknowledged that
Father had completed the case-plan services recommended to him following Mother’s
death and that he was consistent with visitation. But she testified that his ongoing legal
issues complicated her ability to recommend future case-plan services. Rather, the
post-arrest case plan directed Father to contact a support program to assist him with
his unemployment and housing issues.
{¶7} Father acknowledged his criminal charges and related legal issues but
testified that he anticipated that the case would be resolved “within the next court date
or two.” Father explained that housing had never been an issue before his recent arrest
and pretrial incarceration, which ultimately caused his eviction. He clarified his living 3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
arrangements and lack of home study—while he had been living in his significant
other’s house with her family, he did not ask HCJFS to complete a home study of her
house because of alleged complications with having his sister fingerprinted.
{¶8} Waller explained that D.L. had lived with Maternal Grandmother for
most of his life, where he was “a happy two-year-old child.” She described D.L.’s bond
with Sister and his aunt, who both live with Maternal Grandmother. Finally, Waller
explained that HCJFS disapproved a placement with Paternal Grandmother because
the home-study report indicated she failed to acknowledge Father’s criminal history.
Yet, Paternal Grandmother recalled that there was little conversation about Father’s
criminal history during the home study. The home study report recommending D.L.’s
placement with Maternal Grandmother, as well as the home-study report advising
against placing D.L. with Paternal Grandmother, were entered into the evidence.
{¶9} Following the hearing, the magistrate determined that awarding
Maternal Grandmother legal custody of D.L. was in the child’s best interest. Father
objected and, after a brief hearing, the juvenile court denied Father’s objection and
analyzed the best-interest factors in both R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) and 3109.05(F)(1). The
court found that Father “has a lengthy history of court involvement,” and “continued
to rack up criminal charges in multiple counties since HCJFS was once again awarded
custody, stemming from Father’s 2021 arrest.” The court relied on Waller’s testimony
that Father was unemployed and lacked stable housing.
{¶10} Beginning with D.L.’s interaction and relationships, the juvenile court
found that D.L. was placed with Maternal Grandmother from birth, and “apart from a
few months Father regained Custody [sic],” D.L. remained in her care along with his
sibling. See R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a). Turning to D.L.’s custodial history, the juvenile
court found that D.L. had been in HCJFS’s custody for 27 months out of the past 31 4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
months. See R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(c). Regarding D.L.’s need for secure, permanent
housing, the juvenile court found that Maternal Grandmother had permanent housing
and Father had no independent housing. See R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(d).
{¶11} While the juvenile court acknowledged Father’s desire to regain custody
and his consistent visitation with D.L., it found that D.L. had a close bond with
Maternal Grandmother and Sister. See R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(a)-(c). The juvenile court
found that D.L. was adjusted to life with Maternal Grandmother, who provides “a
stable and safe living environment” for him. See R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(d). And it found
Maternal Grandmother well suited to facilitate parenting and visitation time with D.L.
See R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(f). The juvenile court adopted the magistrate’s findings and
conclusion. Father appeals the juvenile court’s decision.
II. Law and Analysis
{¶12} Father argues in a single assignment of error that granting Maternal
Grandmother legal custody of D.L. was an abuse of discretion and contends that the
juvenile court’s best-interest analysis is not supported by sufficient evidence or the
manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶13} When determining the appropriate disposition for a child adjudicated
dependent, the juvenile court may “[a]ward legal custody of the child to either parent
or to any person” who moves for legal custody before the dispositional hearing. R.C.
2151.323(A)(3). The juvenile court’s award of legal custody of D.L. to Maternal
Grandmother vested her with certain caretaking and decision-making rights. See R.C.
2151.011(B)(21). But “an award of legal custody of a child does not divest parents of
their residual parental rights, privileges, and responsibilities.” See In re C.R., 108 Ohio
St.3d 369, 2006-Ohio-1191, 843 N.E.2d 1188, ¶ 17, citing R.C. 2151.011(B)(19), and In
re Hockstok, 98 Ohio St.3d 238, 2002-Ohio-7208, 781 N.E.2d 971, fn. 1. 5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶14} The juvenile court’s decision to grant or deny legal custody “must be
determined according to the best interest of the child.” In re M/E, 1st Dist. Hamilton
No. C-200349, 2021-Ohio-450, ¶ 19. Because Father retained his residual parental
rights, privileges, and responsibilities, we review the juvenile court’s factual findings
to see if they are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In re A.W., 1st Dist.
Hamilton No. C-140142, 2015-Ohio-489, ¶ 9. Further, we review the juvenile court’s
determination of the child’s best interest for an abuse of discretion. Id. at ¶ 18. For us
to find that the juvenile court abused its discretion, its decision must be unreasonable,
arbitrary, or unconscionable. Id. at ¶ 10, citing Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d
217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). In the context of legal-custody decisions, best-
interest findings are reasonable if supported by competent and credible evidence. Id.
{¶15} When determining the best interest of a child in a legal-custody dispute,
the juvenile court may consider the best-interest factors enumerated under R.C.
2151.414(D)(1) or 3109.04(F)(1). Id. Here, the juvenile court applied the facts of this
case to the relevant factors in both statutes. Father maintains that the juvenile court’s
determination that awarding Maternal Grandmother legal custody of D.L. was in the
child’s best interest is not supported by credible evidence. We disagree.
{¶16} Beginning with R.C. 2151.414(D)(1), the juvenile court considered D.L.’s
interactions and interrelationships, custodial history, and need for a legally secure
permanent placement. The juvenile court found that Maternal Grandmother had
provided D.L. with secure and permanent housing for most of his life and that he had
developed a strong bond with Maternal Grandmother and Sister. Waller testified that
she personally observed D.L. in Maternal Grandmother’s home, where she described
him as a “happy two-year-old child” with all of his needs met. Waller had no concerns
for D.L.’s safety or well-being in her care, or regarding Maternal Grandmother’s ability 6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
to protect D.L. Further, Waller explained that D.L. was bonded with Sister. In addition
to Waller’s testimony, the home-study report for Maternal Grandmother supports the
juvenile court’s findings.
{¶17} Turning to R.C. 3109.04(F)(1), the relevant factors considered were
Father’s wishes, the person most likely to facilitate visitation and parenting time,
D.L.’s interactions and interrelationships, and his adjustment to his home and
community. The juvenile court recognized Father’s desire to have custody of D.L. and
his consistent visitation with his son, but found that D.L. had developed a close bond
with Maternal Grandmother and Sister. In addition, D.L. had adjusted to living in
Maternal Grandmother’s home, which was a stable and safe environment. Further, the
juvenile court found that Maternal Grandmother “is in the best position to facilitate
consistent, stable parenting time visits.” Again, these findings by the juvenile court are
supported by Waller’s testimony and Maternal Grandmother’s home-study report.
{¶18} Father asserts that the evidence in the record demonstrates that his
pending criminal cases would not affect his ability to parent D.L., he had recently
found employment, and that he could provide stable housing for D.L. at his significant
other’s house. Waller testified that HCJFS was concerned with the potential outcome
of Father’s criminal charges. While Father and his attorney expressed a belief that his
pending criminal charges would be promptly dismissed, his criminal case is still
pending. And despite Father’s testimony describing his significant other’s house, he
acknowledged that he had never requested a home study. In contrast, the juvenile
court was presented with a copy of the home-study report for Maternal Grandmother,
describing her home as safe and secure.
7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶19} After our review of the record, we hold that competent and credible
evidence supported the juvenile court’s finding that awarding legal custody of D.L. to
Maternal Grandmother was in D.L.’s best interest.
III. Conclusion
{¶20} We overrule Father’s single assignment of error and affirm the juvenile
court’s judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
CROUSE, P.J., and BERGERON, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.