[Cite as In re E.W., 2026-Ohio-1164.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OTTAWA COUNTY
In re E.W. Court of Appeals No. {62}OT-25-0252
Trial Court No. 2024 JUV 255
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Decided: March 31, 2026
***** Zachary E. Dusza, for appellant.
Sarah A. Nation, for appellee.
*****
DUHART, J.
{¶ 1} This is an appeal by appellant, T.F., the mother (“mother”) of minor child,
E.W., from the May 2, 2025 judgment of the Ottawa County Court of Common Pleas,
Juvenile Division, awarding legal custody of E.W. to his maternal grandmother, appellee,
R.F. (“grandmother”) and supervised visits to mother. For the reasons that follow, we
affirm the trial court’s judgment.
{¶ 2} Mother sets forth two assignments of error:
1. The trial court abused its discretion in awarding custody of the minor child herein to [grandmother] and severely restricting [mother’s] parenting time. 2. The trial court’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Background
Michigan
{¶ 3} The following events occurred in Michigan, except where otherwise noted.
{¶ 4} In or about 2003, when mother was 10 years old, she was adopted by
grandmother and her husband, T.F. (“grandfather”). When mother was 18 years old, she
left grandmother’s and grandfather’s (collectively “grandparents”) house. Mother went
to Job Corps when she was 19 years old and earned her GED and CNA license.
{¶ 5} In November 2013, E.W. was born to mother, who was unmarried. Mother
brought E.W. home from the hospital to grandparents’ house and lived there for two to
five months. Mother and E.W. then moved out of grandparents’ house but returned in
about July 2014. Since that time, E.W. has lived with grandparents, and grandmother has
been E.W.’s primary caregiver. Mother moved out of grandparents’ home at some point.
{¶ 6} Also in July 2014, mother filed a petition for the appointment of a limited
guardian for E.W. after grandmother encouraged mother to give grandmother
guardianship of E.W. so grandmother could get him medical care and “sign for him the
things that he needed to get done. . . [T]he guardianship was not meant to be permanent.”
A Michigan probate court granted grandmother a limited guardianship of E.W., when
E.W. was about seven or nine months old. Mother had parenting time with E.W., which
she exercised.
2. {¶ 7} In February 2019, mother gave birth to E.W.’s half-sister, S (“sister”).
Mother was unsure who fathered sister. Mother was homeless when she was pregnant
with sister. After sister was born, grandparents helped mother with sister’s care for
several years. Mother has full custody of sister.
{¶ 8} On May 19, 2022, mother filed an action in the probate court to terminate
the limited guardianship of E.W., and for reunification with E.W.
{¶ 9} In November 2022, grandparents and E.W. moved to Ottawa County, Ohio.
Mother and sister continued to live in Michigan.
{¶ 10} On or about December 1, 2022, grandmother filed a complaint for custody
of E.W. in family court in Jackson County, Michigan. Grandmother alleged, inter alia,
that E.W. primarily lived with grandparents since 2014 when mother asked grandmother
to take E.W. into grandmother’s home. On December 22, 2022, mother filed her answer
to the complaint, in which she admitted the foregoing allegation.
{¶ 11} On February 10, 2023, mother filed, in family court, a motion for visitation
with E.W. and to prohibit grandmother from filing an action outside of the family court’s
jurisdiction regarding the custody, guardianship or adoption of E.W. Mother asserted,
inter alia, that grandparents, without notice to mother or the court, moved with E.W. from
Michigan to Ohio, which was over two hours away from mother, and since May 2022,
visits between mother and E.W. had been challenging. On March 14, 2023, grandmother
filed a response to the motion in which she set forth that the move to Ohio was to
facilitate better employment for grandfather and mother was aware of the move and
encouraged it.
3. {¶ 12} On May 24, 2023, the family court issued an order granting mother and
grandmother joint legal custody of E.W., with grandmother having primary physical
custody. The court further ordered that mother have parenting time with E.W. and pay
child support. Neither grandmother nor mother filed written objections to the order.
{¶ 13} Mother initially had supervised parenting time with E.W. every week for
one hour, then she had unsupervised time with E.W., which eventually led to
unsupervised visits every other weekend. The exchanges of E.W. for visits happened
originally in Jackson, Michigan, but changed to Adrian, Michigan.
{¶ 14} In September 2023, mother filed a motion to modify child support in the
family court. A hearing was subsequently held and mother’s motion was denied.
{¶ 15} In October 2023, there was an incident during an exchange of E.W. from
grandparents to mother. According to grandmother, E.W. did not want to go with mother
for a visit, so mother tried to pull E.W. out of grandparents’ car. Grandmother yelled at
mother to get out of the car. The police were ultimately called, and E.W. went with
mother in accordance with the court order.
{¶ 16} On or about December 19, 2023, mother filed, with the family court, a
motion regarding custody of E.W., in which she sought full legal and sole custody.
{¶ 17} On December 20, 2023, grandmother filed, with the family court, a motion
for, inter alia, a change in custody seeking sole legal custody of E.W. and requesting that
mother’s parenting time be suspended pending a psychological evaluation and the
completion of a parenting course. In the motion grandmother alleged that during
mother’s parenting time with E.W.: mother refused to give E.W. his ADHD medicine;
4. mother focused on E.W.’s hygiene and in November 2023, mother bathed and scrubbed
E.W. (who was 10 years old); mother focused on E.W.’s size and weight and E.W. was
always hungry when he was returned to grandparents; mother brushed E.W.’s teeth until
his gums were red and irritated; and at the beginning of visits, mother took pictures of
E.W. to document any blemishes, but E.W. did not want to be photographed.
{¶ 18} On January 29, 2024, the family court issued an order, inter alia, denying
mother’s motion regarding custody, setting grandmother’s motion for change in custody
for an evidentiary hearing, denying grandmother’s request for a psychological evaluation
of mother, ordering both parties to administer medicine to E.W., ordering both parties to
complete the Children in Between: High Conflict Solution program and file a certificate
of completion, ordering that neither party shall photograph E.W. for litigation purposes
and ordering that neither party shall make derogatory comments about the other.
{¶ 19} On April 15, 2024, the family court considered interim issues, which
consisted of mother’s failure to complete the ordered program, mother’s failure to
administer medicine to E.W. and derogatory/negative comments mother made about
grandmother.
{¶ 20} On April 24, 2024, grandmother filed an ex parte motion to suspend
mother’s parenting time in which it was alleged that mother failed to administer medicine
to E.W. and mother made derogatory/negative comments about grandmother. On April
25, 2024, the family court issued an ex parte order suspending mother’s parenting time
with E.W. On April 30, 2024, mother filed objections to the order. On May 30, 2024, a
5. hearing was held in family court. On June 5, 2024, the court issued an order setting aside
the ex parte order and granting mother visits with E.W. every other weekend.
{¶ 21} On August 1, 2024, the family court issued an order finding, inter alia, that
it no longer had jurisdiction, E.W. resided in Ohio for over six months and jurisdiction
was proper in Ohio. The family court ordered the case transferred to the applicable court
in Ottawa County, Ohio.
{¶ 22} On August 10, 2024, an incident occurred between mother and E.W. during
a visit (“the incident”) at mother’s apartment in Lansing, Michigan, where police were
summoned and she was arrested for child abuse.
Ohio
{¶ 23} The following events happened in Ohio, except where otherwise noted.
{¶ 24} In February 2024, E.W. started individual counseling and continued
counseling through at least September 2024.
{¶ 25} On August 12, 2024, an ex parte domestic violence civil protection order
(“CPO”) was issued by the Ottawa County Court of Common Pleas. Grandmother
sought the ex parte CPO on behalf of E.W. as a result of the incident in Michigan. A
hearing on the matter was held and on August 22, 2024, a CPO was issued pursuant to
R.C. 3113.31. The CPO remains in effect until August 31, 2026.
{¶ 26} Also in August 2024, the Michigan family court transferred the case to the
Ottawa County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division (“trial court”). It appears that
the case commenced in the trial court at the stage where the prior proceedings in
6. Michigan had ceased - with grandmother’s December 20, 2023 motion for a change in
custody seeking to terminate joint custody of E.W. and have sole legal custody of E.W.1
{¶ 27} On August 28, 2024, grandmother filed a motion for the trial court to
conduct an in-camera interview of E.W.
{¶ 28} On October 4, 2024, the trial court held an in-camera interview with E.W.
{¶ 29} On October 9, 2024, correspondence from the clinical supervisor of E.W.’s
counseling center regarding E.W.’s sessions, mental state and mental health was filed
with the trial court.
{¶ 30} On January 6, 2025, a trial was held before a magistrate on grandmother’s
motion. Mother, grandmother, grandfather and another relative, M.F., testified.
{¶ 31} On February 2, 2025, the magistrate issued a decision in which she reached
the conclusions, inter alia, that grandmother shall be the sole custodian of the child,
1 Jurisdiction over interstate child-custody actions is governed by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”), which is codified in R.C. Chapter 3127. The UCCJEA outlines circumstances under which an Ohio court may assume jurisdiction over a custody determination issued by a court of another state, see, e.g., R.C. 3127.17, and enforce a custody determination made by a court of another state. See R.C. 3127.33. The UCCJEA also sets out detailed procedures for registering a foreign child custody decree in an Ohio court. See R.C. 3127.35. We observe there is no indication in the record that grandmother sought to register the Michigan decree in the trial court. Nevertheless, there is no requirement in the UCCJEA that the foreign decree be registered before an Ohio court may modify the foreign child custody determination. See Bonds v. Bonds, 2011-Ohio-5867, ¶ 50 (11th Dist.). Moreover, mother did not raise the issue of the lack of registration, she did not contest the validity of the Michigan decree, nor did she claim that the trial court lacks jurisdiction.
7. mother shall be permitted to exercise Level 2 supervised visits with the child once a
month.
{¶ 32} On February 21, 2025, mother filed objections to the magistrate’s decision
claiming the decision was contrary to law, not supported by competent, credible evidence
and against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶ 33} On May 2, 2025, the trial court issued its judgment entry, noting that the
magistrate entered her decision and mother filed objections to the decision. The trial
court found there were no errors of law or other defects on the face of the magistrate’s
decision and adopted that decision.
{¶ 34} Mother appealed.
Magistrate’s Decision
{¶ 35} The magistrate detailed the testimony presented at trial and set forth the
following relevant information.
{¶ 36} Grandmother has resided in Port Clinton, Ohio, since November 22, 2023.
She has been married for 35 years and works in education. Throughout mother’s
childhood, mother suffered from mental health issues and had two psychiatric stays.
{¶ 37} E.W. has been in grandmother’s care “since the child was born and
[m]other moved out when the child was 9 months old.”
{¶ 38} Prior to E.W.’s visits with mother, he would get very anxious and did not
want to go. During visits, E.W. was not given his allergy medication or his ADHD
medication, and mother routinely disparaged grandparents. When E.W. returned from
one visit, he had been scrubbed raw by mother.
8. {¶ 39} Regarding the incident which prompted the CPO, during the weekend visit
with mother, E.W. repeatedly called grandmother asking for help. Grandmother
contacted the police and requested a welfare check of E.W. which resulted in mother
being arrested for child abuse based on marks on E.W.’s face and neck and bruising on
his buttocks. Thereafter, mother’s visits with E.W. were suspended.
{¶ 40} M.F. observed E.W. before and after visits with mother and testified that
E.W. was needy and whiny and appeared shell-shocked upon his return from visits with
mother. Once visits stopped, E.W. appeared to be well adjusted and never said he missed
mother or wanted to see her.
{¶ 41} Grandfather supports grandmother’s motion for custody and confirmed her
testimony. Neither he nor grandmother want E.W. to have a relationship with mother, nor
do they want E.W. in therapy with mother.
{¶ 42} Mother testified she has her GED and a STNA license and works at nursing
homes primarily on weekends; she works about 24-40 hours a week. Mother lives in a
two-bedroom apartment with sister.
{¶ 43} Mother admitted E.W. was emotional about going with her on visits, but
believes he enjoyed his visits. She also admitted that she showered E.W. because he did
not know how to wash, and that she criticized E.W.’s weight and told him he smelled.
Mother acknowledged that she slept until 2 p.m. one time during a visit and had not fed
E.W., but there was food in the house. She does not give E.W. his medicines on visits, as
she did not believe in ADHD medication.
9. {¶ 44} Mother indicated there was no co-parenting of E.W. with grandparents, as
her relationship is strained at best. She does not want to deal with grandparents and does
not want interference from them.
{¶ 45} Mother admitted she smokes marijuana every day and has smokes when the
children are with her, but she smoked in the bathroom or outside. She also admitted she
has used marijuana and driven, but not when her children were in the car. Mother would
like every other weekend visits with E.W., and visitation in the summer.
Law and Argument set forth by the Magistrate
{¶ 46} With respect to modifying a prior decree allocating parental rights, the trial
court2 must first find that a change has occurred in the circumstances of the child or the
residential parent, pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E)(1). The trial court must retain the
residential parent unless a modification is in the best interest of the child and one of the
following applies:
(i) The residential parent agrees to a change in the residential parent . . . (ii) The child, with the consent of the residential parent . . . has been integrated into the family of the person seeking to become the residential parent. (iii) The harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by the advantages of the change of environment to the child.
{¶ 47} It was apparent to the parties and the trial court that the Michigan order was
unworkable and a change in circumstances had occurred, when considering
grandmother’s relocation, the parties’ hostility and inability to communicate, E.W.’s age
and his wishes. The trial court terminated Michigan’s joint custody order.
2 The magistrate referred to herself as the trial court in her decision. 10. {¶ 48} The trial court considered the best interest of E.W. pursuant to R.C.
3109.04(F)(1) and found as follows.
(a) The wishes of [E.W.’s] parents regarding [E.W.’s] care; Mother testified that she wanted custody of [E.W.] and then at the conclusion of her testimony indicated that she wanted visitation. Grandmother has always wanted custody of [E.W.].
(b) If the [trial court] has interviewed [E.W.] in chambers . . . regarding [E.W.’s] wishes and concerns as to the allocation of parental rights . . .; The [trial court] did an in-camera interview of [E.W.].
(c) [E.W.’s] interaction and interrelationship with [his] parents, siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect [his] best interest; [M.F.] testified that upon moving back to the area he sees [E.W.] frequently and they have a good relationship. Mother indicates that she wants [E.W.] to have a relationship with [his sister].
(d) [E.W.’s] adjustment to [his] home, school, and community; [E.W.] is well adjusted to Oak Harbor.
(e) The mental and physical health of all persons involved in the situation; There was no testimony of any physical or mental health limitations of [g]randmother. There was testimony that [m]other had mental health issues.
(f) The parent more likely to honor and facilitate [c]ourt-approved parenting time rights or visitation and companionship rights; Both parties appear to be willing to honor and facilitate [c]ourt[-]approved parenting time.
(g) Whether either parent has failed to make all child support payments . . .; Mother was ordered to pay child support, however there was no testimony as to its current status.
(h) Whether either parent or any member of the household of either parent previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to any criminal offense involving any act that resulted in a child being an abused child or a neglected child; . . .; There was no evidence of this presented.
11. (i) Whether the residential parent or one of the parents subject to a shared parenting decree . . . ; There is no shared parenting order.
(j) Whether either parent has established a residence, or is planning to establish a residence, outside this state. Neither party is intending on moving from their current residence.
Magistrate’s Conclusions
{¶ 49} “Taking the above statutory factors into account,” the trial court ordered
“the following to be in the best interests” of E.W.:
Grandmother . . . shall be the sole custodian of E.W. Mother shall not exercise unsupervised visitation at this time. Mother shall be permitted to exercise visitation at Joyful Connections one time per month for two hours at Level 2 of supervision. Mother shall be responsible for all costs related to [v]isitation. Mother shall have 2 phone calls per week for a duration of one-half hour. Grandmother shall claim [E.W.] as a tax exemption every year. Mother’s previously ordered child support in the Michigan case shall continue.
Trial Court’s Judgment
{¶ 50} On May 2, 2025, the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision after
reviewing the file, the magistrate’s decision and determining independently of that
decision, that there were no errors of law or other defects on the face of the decision.
Mother’s Assignments of Error
{¶ 51} In mother’s brief, she combines her assigned errors, arguing the trial court
abused its discretion in awarding custody of E.W. to grandmother and severely restricting
mother’s parenting time, and the trial court’s decision is against the manifest weight of
12. evidence. Mother sets forth that “[c]ourts of appeals apply an abuse of discretion
standard when reviewing permanent custody appeals.”
{¶ 52} Mother contends that when the trial court determines whether to modify a
joint legal custody order, as well as other issues regarding the allocation of parental rights
and responsibilities, the court is bound by the best interest factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(a)-
(j).
{¶ 53} Mother believes what is most inappropriate in the trial court’s judgment
entry is the minimal parenting time that she was afforded, given the testimony and
evidence tendered, and the best interest factors. Mother notes that in the magistrate’s
decision, the magistrate outlined the best interest factors and provided comments but
offered no explanation whatsoever as to why it was appropriate to only afford mother
supervised parenting time, at Level 2, once a month for two hours. Mother asserts that
“‘[a]bsent a determination that it would not be in a child’s best interest, an order
permitting parenting time shall ensure, whenever possible, the opportunity for both
parents to have frequent and continuing contact with the child. R.C. 3109.051(A).’
Giumenti v. Johns, 2024-Ohio-5562 [(5th Dist.)].”
{¶ 54} Mother argues the visitation she was afforded by the trial court does not
allow her frequent and continuing contact with E.W. She submits that she was able to
refute all of the accusations levied against her by grandmother, and there is no reason
why mother should not enjoy parenting time on a more consistent basis, like the
parenting time outlined in the trial court’s companionship schedule. Mother contends
13. that by all reports, she loves her child and desires to maintain a parent-child relationship
with him.
{¶ 55} Mother further argues that the trial court completely disregarded E.W.’s
relationship with his sister, effectively terminating the children’s relationship with each
other. This, mother asserts, is despite her testimony about the children’s very positive
sibling relationship.
{¶ 56} Mother submits that grandparents’ actions show they have done nothing but
attempt to undermine mother’s relationship with her child. Mother claims that to allow
her to see E.W. only two hours per month at a supervised visitation facility is just more of
an opportunity for grandmother to continue to attempt to alienate the child from his
mother and ensure they do not have any kind of meaningful relationship. Mother insists
that in no circumstance or situation can that be said to be in the child’s best interest.
Law
Legal Custody/Modification of Child Custody Order
R.C. 2151.011(B)(21) defines legal custody as
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 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.
{¶ 57} In Ohio, child custody disputes are within the purview of one of two
statutes: R.C. 2151.23(A)(2) or R.C. 3109.04.
{¶ 58} R.C. 2151.23(A)(2) grants juvenile courts exclusive original jurisdiction
“to determine the custody of any child not a ward of another court of this state.” This
14. includes “custodial claims brought by the persons considered nonparents at law.” In re
Bonfield, 2002-Ohio-6660, ¶ 43. Thus, a juvenile court may adjudicate child custody
claims between a parent and nonparent pursuant to R.C. 2151.23(A)(2). Id. at ¶ 45.
{¶ 59} R.C. 3109.04 establishes the process for allocating parental rights and
responsibilities typically between the parents of a child. See In re S.T., 2025-Ohio-1379,
¶ 22 (6th Dist.), citing In re Perales, 52 Ohio St.2d 89, 96 (1977).3
Best Interest Factors
{¶ 60} R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) provides:
In determining the best interest of a child pursuant to this section, whether on an original decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities for the care of children or a modification of a decree allocating those rights and responsibilities, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to:
(a) The wishes of the child's parents regarding the child’s care; (b) If the court has interviewed the child in chambers . . . the child’s wishes and concerns . . . (c) The child’s interaction and interrelationship with the child’s parents, siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child’s best interest; (d) The child’s adjustment to the child's home, school, and community; (e) The mental and physical health of all persons involved in the situation; (f) The parent more likely to honor and facilitate court-approved parenting time rights or visitation and companionship rights; (g) Whether either parent has failed to make all child support payments . . . (h) Whether either parent or any member of the household of either parent previously has been convicted of . . . [inter alia,] any criminal offense involving any act that resulted in a child being an abused child or a neglected child . . .
3 We note that the magistrate and the juvenile court applied a two-part analysis per R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a) when analyzing grandmother’s motion for change in custody. Given that mother’s arguments raise only a concern with the best interest factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(a)-(j), we limit our focus to that narrow issue. 15. (i) Whether the residential parent or one of the parents subject to a shared parenting decree has continuously and willfully denied the other parent's right to parenting time . . . (j) Whether either parent has established a residence, or is planning to establish a residence, outside this state. . . .
Standard of Review
{¶ 61} A trial court’s decision in a custody modification proceeding will not be
reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71, 74 (1988). An
abuse of discretion implies that the trial court’s attitude was arbitrary, unreasonable or
unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). If there is some
competent, credible evidence in the record to support the trial court’s decision, there is
generally no basis for a reviewing court to find an abuse of discretion. Ross v. Ross, 64
Ohio St.2d 203, 204 (1980).
Analysis
{¶ 62} At the outset, we recognize that mother set forth two assignments of error,
the second of which is that the trial court’s decision is against the manifest weight of
evidence. However, mother offers no argument or legal authority in support of the
second assigned error. We therefore dismiss mother’s second assignment of error and
limit our examination to mother’s first assigned error. See Ohio Div. of Securities v.
Treece, 2022-Ohio-3267, ¶ 13 (6th Dist.) (“‘According to App.R. 12(A)(2) [an appellate
court] may disregard an assignment of error if an appellant fails to cite to any legal
authority in support of an argument a required by App.R. 16(A)(7),’ Huffer v. Brown, . . .
2013-Ohio-4384, ¶ 12 [(10th Dist.)] (citations omitted).”).
16. {¶ 63} Mother argues in her first assignment of error that the trial court abused its
discretion in awarding custody of E.W. to grandmother and severely restricting mother’s
parenting time.
{¶ 64} A review of the record, including the transcript of the hearing on
grandmother’s motion for change of custody and the magistrate’s decision, we find the
magistrate considered and analyzed the R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) best interest factors and
provided findings for each factor, which findings were supported by the record. In the
decision, the magistrate detailed, inter alia, that mother smokes marijuana daily, she
admitted that she did not give E.W. his prescribed medicine when he was with her, she
was critical of E.W.’s weight and cleanliness, she disparaged grandparents during visits
with E.W., she slept until 2:00 in the afternoon on one occasion when she had E.W. and
his sister in the apartment, E.W. has been in grandmother’s care since he was about nine
months old, a CPO was issued for E.W.’s protection due to the incident between he and
mother which resulted in marks on E.W., grandparents do not want mother to have a
relationship with E.W., the parties do not co-parent and the parties’ relationship is
strained. The trial court then adopted the magistrate’s decision.
{¶ 65} Upon reviewing the evidence and the applicable law, we find competent,
credible evidence in the record to support the trial court’s judgment. As such, we cannot
say that the trial court abused its discretion when it found it was in E.W.’s best interest to
award legal custody to grandmother, and to limit mother’s parenting time to supervised
visits once a month for two hours and two phone calls per week.
{¶ 66} Accordingly, we find mother’s first assignment of error not well-taken.
17. {¶ 67} For the foregoing reasons, and having dismissed mother’s second
assignment of error, the May 2, 2025 judgment of the Ottawa County Court of Common
Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed. Pursuant to App.R. 24, mother is ordered to pay the
costs incurred on appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Gene A. Zmuda, J. JUDGE
Myron C. Duhart, J. JUDGE
Charles E. Sulek, J. CONCUR. JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
18.