[Cite as Randall E. v. Courtney B., 2025-Ohio-5376.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HENRY COUNTY
RANDALL SCOTT E., CASE NO. 7-25-04 PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
COURTNEY B.,
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE, OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY -And-
ROBERT B., ET AL.,
THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS.
Appeal from Henry County Common Pleas Court Domestic Relations Division Trial Court No. 22 DR 0019
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: December 1, 2025
APPEARANCES:
Ian A. Weber for Appellant
Stephen M. Szuch for Appellee Case No. 7-25-04
WALDICK, P.J.
{¶1} Father-appellant, Randall Scott E. (“Father”), brings this appeal from
the March 27, 2025, judgment of the Henry County Common Pleas Court, Domestic
Relations Division, granting legal custody of the minor child GB-E to maternal
grandparents-third party defendants, Robert and Luanne B. (collectively,
“Grandparents”). On appeal, Father argues that the trial court’s decision was against
the manifest weight of the evidence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
Background
{¶2} GB-E was born in August of 2021. She has been diagnosed with autism
spectrum disorder and is nonverbal. Her parents are Randall E., Father, and
Courtney B. (“Mother”).
{¶3} In April of 2023, Father and Mother divorced pursuant to a consent
divorce decree that included an agreed shared parenting plan.
{¶4} In June of 2023, less than two months after the divorce was finalized,
the shared parenting plan was suspended and Father was named sole residential
parent and legal custodian of GB-E. At the time, Mother had “relapsed” from her
substance abuse treatment and she was not engaging with her mental health services.
-2- Case No. 7-25-04
{¶5} On January 1, 2024, an incident occurred at Father’s home wherein he
allegedly pointed a firearm at a “Door Dash” driver. The “Door Dash” driver called
the police, and when the police arrived, Father’s girlfriend ran out of the residence
and had significant, fresh bruising on her face. During the course of this case, Father
told multiple stories regarding how his girlfriend was injured, claiming it was from
a car accident or an ATV accident. There was also a claim that she fell on a curb.
On January 1, 2024, Father was arrested and charged with Aggravated Menacing,
Domestic Violence, and Assault, all first degree misdemeanors. GB-E was not at
home at the time of the incident as she was staying with her paternal grandfather.
{¶6} Grandparents learned of the charges against Father and on February 24,
2024, Grandparents filed a motion to intervene and a motion for legal custody of
GB-E. On February 28, 2024, Grandparents filed an emergency motion for ex parte
orders and other relief, detailing their concerns with, inter alia, the criminal charges
against Father.
{¶7} Notably, Father had prior felony convictions in North Carolina related
to drugs and larceny. He was therefore under a weapons disability from those
convictions and was not permitted to possess a firearm. Father was charged with
Having Weapons While Under Disability for his possession of a firearm during the
January 1, 2024, incident, a third degree felony, and a warrant was issued for his
arrest.
-3- Case No. 7-25-04
{¶8} An officer conducting surveillance on Father’s residence served the
warrant for his arrest. A subsequent search of Father’s residence uncovered over
$2,000 in currency, a scale with cocaine residue, another digital scale, and a
significant amount of marijuana, which resulted in an indictment for Trafficking in
Drugs and Possession of Controlled Substances, both fifth degree felonies.
{¶9} After a hearing on March 8, 2024, Grandparents were granted
temporary custody of GB-E, with Father having supervised visitation. Grandparents
were subsequently added as third-party defendants and a GAL was appointed at
Grandparents’ request.
{¶10} Since Grandparents split their time between a home in Ohio and a
home in Florida, they were ordered to arrange and offer supervised visits with Father
and to provide phone/video calls with GB-E. Additionally, Grandparents actually
offered to fly Father to Florida once per month at their own expense so he could
spend time with GB-E. However, Father only exercised this option one time. He
claimed he was busy taking care of his dogs and working; however, as was
repeatedly apparent throughout the case, Father’s claims to any legitimate,
verifiable income were dubious at best.
{¶11} GB-E was enrolled in specialized schooling in Florida where she
received significant care. GB-E spent approximately 30 hours per week in
specialized schooling and/or therapy. She received speech, occupational, and
-4- Case No. 7-25-04
behavioral therapy and was, given her restrictions, blossoming in the care of
Grandparents.
{¶12} A final hearing was held on pending motions, including Grandparents’
motion for legal custody of GB-E, on February 24, 2025. At the hearing both the
GAL and Mother recommended that legal custody of GB-E should be granted to
Grandparents. Father testified that he was able to properly care for GB-E, and that
other than a 30 day jail sentence with work release, his criminal charges had been
resolved with sentences of community control. However, despite numerous
discovery requests, Father did not provide verifiable income. He claimed to be a
partner in a “cane corso” dog breeding and training business that earned him an
average of $1500 per month, but he produced no credible records supporting his
claims. In fact, he claimed he did not file income taxes for the majority of the
previous years because he did not earn enough money.
{¶13} By contrast, Mother testified that Father sold drugs during their
marriage to make money in Ohio and in North Carolina. Father’s bank account
records were presented and there were some arguably unusual deposits in Father’s
bank account that could have been consistent with Mother’s claims.
{¶14} On March 27, 2025, the trial court filed a judgment entry granting legal
custody of GB-E to Grandparents. The trial court’s entry was thorough, individually
summarizing the relevant testimony from each witness. The trial court determined
that Mother was voluntarily relinquishing her rights, and that Father was “currently
-5- Case No. 7-25-04
not capable of providing for a lot of [GB-E’s] needs and for her safety in his home,
and for that reason, it would be detrimental to award him custody at this time.” (Doc.
No. 95). The trial court determined that it was in GB-E’s best interest to continue in
her placement with grandparents.
{¶15} Mother and Father were ordered to have supervised visitation with
GB-E. In addition, the trial court stated that Father should not petition for the return
of custody of GB-E until he had successfully completed his probation(s). Father
now brings the instant appeal from the trial court’s judgment, asserting the following
assignments of error for our review.
First Assignment of Error
The court abuse its discretion in determining that clear and convincing evidence supported its decision to award legal custody to grandparents Robert & Luanne Billstein: Further, the award of legal custody was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Second Assignment of Error
The trial court abused its discretion in finding the award of legal custody was in the best interests of the child.
First and Second Assignments of Error
{¶16} In both his assignments of error, Father challenges the trial court’s
determination to grant legal custody of GB-E to Grandparents.
-6- Case No. 7-25-04
Standard of Review
The Ohio Revised Code defines “[l]egal 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. 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).
{¶17} Importantly, “the award of legal custody is ‘not as drastic a remedy as
permanent custody.’” In re J.B., 2016-Ohio-2670, ¶ 32 (3d Dist.), quoting In re L.D.,
2013-Ohio-3214, ¶ 7 (10th Dist.). 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., 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., 2015-Ohio-5445, ¶ 19 (3d Dist.).
{¶18} An award of legal custody will not be reversed if the judgment is
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.1 In re A.D., 2023-Ohio-2442, ¶ 62
(3d Dist.). Preponderance of the evidence entails the greater weight of the evidence,
1 Father argues that the trial court's judgment was not supported by clear and convincing evidence; however, that standard is utilized when determining permanent custody cases. This case concerns legal custody, and has a lower burden of proof.
-7- Case No. 7-25-04
evidence that is more probable, persuasive, and possesses greater probative
value. Id. Thus, our standard of review is whether a legal custody decision is against
the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶19} In considering whether a court’s judgment is against the manifest
weight of the evidence, this Court weighs the evidence and all reasonable
inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in
resolving conflicts in the evidence, the factfinder clearly lost its way and created
such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be reversed and a new
hearing ordered. Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 20. When weighing the
evidence, this Court “must always be mindful of the presumption in favor of the
finder of fact.” Id. at ¶ 21.
Relevant Authority
{¶20} “Jurisdiction in child custody disputes arises under one of two separate
statutes, R.C. 3109.04 and R.C. 2151.23.” Scavio v. Ordway, et al., 2010-Ohio-984,
¶ 18 (3d Dist.). “Underlying both R.C. 3109.04 and R.C. 2151.23 is the principle
that parents are imbued with the fundamental right to care for and retain custody of
their children.” Id. at ¶ 20. Child custody dispute jurisdiction is conferred on the
domestic relations court pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(A) when the custody proceedings
arise out of “any divorce, legal separation, or annulment proceeding and in any
-8- Case No. 7-25-04
proceeding pertaining to the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities for the
care of a child[.]” R.C. 3109.04(A).
{¶21} To safeguard the fundamental parental right to custody, Ohio law
mandates that in a child custody case between a parent and a nonparent, the trial
court must make an explicit finding of parental unsuitability on the record before
awarding legal custody to the nonparent. Scavio at ¶ 21; In re Hockstock, 2002-
Ohio-7208, ¶ 29. “A nonparent may establish unsuitability by demonstrating that
‘(1) the parent has abandoned the child, (2) the parent contractually relinquished
custody of the child, (3) the parent has become incapable of supporting or caring for
the child, or (4) an award of custody would be detrimental to the child.’” In re M.H.,
2023-Ohio-3776, ¶ 41 (1st Dist.), quoting In re R.V., 2021-Ohio-1830, ¶ 19 (1st
Dist.). “If a court concludes that any one of these circumstances describes the
conduct of a parent, the parent may be adjudged unsuitable, and the state may
infringe upon the fundamental parental liberty interest of child
custody.” In re Hockstock, 2002-Ohio-7208, ¶ 17.
{¶22} “In assessing the fourth circumstance (i.e., whether there is a
preponderance of the evidence showing that an award of custody to the parent would
be detrimental to the child), the focus is on the potential harmful effect on the
child.” Heberling v. Deckard, 2024-Ohio-1535, ¶ 36 (3d Dist.). “When making this
assessment, ‘the trial court must avoid making a determination based purely on the
best interest of the child.’” Id. at ¶ 37, quoting In re M.N., 2016-Ohio-7808, ¶ 13
-9- Case No. 7-25-04
(6th Dist.). “Instead, the court should consider the extent and magnitude of harm the
child is likely to experience if placed with his or her natural parent.” Heberling at ¶
37.
Analysis
{¶23} Father argues in his brief that the evidence did not support a finding
that Grandparents should be awarded legal custody of GB-E. He argues that the
evidence was “at best, minimal and conflicting.” (Appt.’s Br. at 6). Further, he
argues the testimony established that he was a good father.
{¶24} Before we review the evidence that was presented in this case, we
emphasize that Father’s brief is inaccurate in two respects. First, he argues that the
award of legal custody of GB-E to Grandparents needed to be supported by “clear
and convincing evidence.” However, the proper burden of proof is by a
preponderance of the evidence. In re A.D., 2023-Ohio-2442, ¶ 62 (3d Dist.). Second,
Father claims that he has been “deprived” of his right to parent his child. This is an
overstatement. Grandparents have only been granted legal custody of GB-E, which
leaves Father (and non-appealing Mother) with residual rights. In re C.R., 2006-
Ohio-1191, ¶ 17. Father’s parental rights have not been entirely terminated.
{¶25} In our review of the matter, we must determine whether the trial court
clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice by determining that
-10- Case No. 7-25-04
Father was unable at the time of the final hearing to provide for GB-E, and that it
would be detrimental to award custody to Father.
{¶26} The testimony at the final hearing, which the trial court summarized
at length in its final judgment entry, established several significant issues with
Father. The first issue was Father’s criminal history and his ongoing criminal
charges/probation. The second issue was Father’s lack of income or verifiable
employment. A third issue was Father’s poorly-explained absences for scheduled
supervised visitation appointments.
{¶27} With regard to Father’s criminal history, Father acknowledged that he
had spent time in prison in North Carolina and that he then violated his parole and
was sent back to prison. Later, Father moved to Ohio and married Mother. Father
and Mother had a tumultuous relationship wherein both claimed unreported
instances of domestic violence. Mother also alleged that Father sold drugs during
their marriage to earn an income.
{¶28} On January 1, 2024, Father was involved in an incident that led to him
pulling a gun out and pointing it at an individual. In addition, Father’s girlfriend ran
out of the house with significant fresh bruising on her face. Officers described the
injury to Father’s girlfriend as appearing to have been caused recently by an object
striking Father’s girlfriend’s face. Father was charged with numerous crimes from
this incident, including Domestic Violence, but his girlfriend (who later became his
fiancé) did not appear in court so the Domestic Violence and Assault Charges were
-11- Case No. 7-25-04
dismissed. Father pled guilty to Aggravated Menacing as a result of the incident
involving the “Door Dash” driver.
{¶29} Because of Father’s gun possession during the January 1, 2024,
incident, he was later charged with Having Weapons While Under Disability, a
third-degree felony. Father ultimately pled guilty to an “Attempted” violation of
Having Weapons Under Disability, a fourth degree felony. At the final hearing,
Father claimed that he had never actually possessed a firearm; rather, he claimed
that the “Door Dash” driver pulled the gun out, and Father took the gun from the
Door Dash driver. While this statement in itself tests the bounds of credibility,
Mother testified that Father regularly had firearms in his possession during their
relationship.
{¶30} In April of 2024, Father’s house was searched pursuant to a warrant.
At that time, the search uncovered over $2,000 in US currency, multiple drivers’
licenses, a scale with residue which was later found to be cocaine, various containers
of marijuana, and a digital scale. Some of the items were found “out in the open” in
the home, where a wandering child could have easily reached them. As a result of
this incident, Father was charged with, inter alia, Trafficking in Drugs and
Possession of Controlled Substances, both fifth degree felonies.
{¶31} Father claimed that the marijuana was only for personal use and was
purchased in Michigan at a dispensary. He had no explanation for why there was
cocaine residue on a scale at his residence. Father’s dad suggested that the scale and
-12- Case No. 7-25-04
cocaine residue were perhaps left in the residence by the prior owner. Father was
adamant that no drug trafficking occurred in the home.
{¶32} Contrary to his claims, Father’s charges, and Mother’s testimony that
Father had been selling drugs during the marriage, became more troubling when
Grandparents looked into Father’s finances. Father had not filed any income taxes
for the years prior to 2024. He claimed he filed income taxes in 2024, but he did not
produce those tax forms.
{¶33} Father claimed that he earned money primarily through two means:
breeding/training dogs, and working odd jobs for people. Father claimed that he was
in a business partnership with a man who lived in the south. He claimed he earned
a breeding income of roughly $1,500 per month, but he could not document these
numbers. When asked to describe certain “Cash App” transactions, Father testified
he was sometimes given cash “gifts” or paid to babysit. Mother testified that Father
was paid for his drug sales through “Cash App” and similar means during their
marriage.
{¶34} Father claimed that he could support GB-E, but he lacked consistent,
verifiable income and employment. Father also testified that he was a full-time
student at the time of the final hearing.
{¶35} Moreover, there were multiple instances while this case was pending
that Father missed visitations with GB-E. Father was late to some meetings. In one
instance he did not have a working vehicle and said he could not afford an Uber.
-13- Case No. 7-25-04
More concerning was an instance wherein Grandparents set up a visitation between
Father and GB-E for GB-E’s third birthday and for a wellness visit Father wanted
to attend. Father missed both the birthday and the wellness visit and he did not
contact Grandparents to explain. Grandparents repeatedly attempted to get in
contact with him over the following week to no avail. Eventually, Grandparents
were able to contact Father’s girlfriend, and Father’s girlfriend stated that Father
had been sick and he had a broken phone. These flimsy excuses for his inability to
contact his daughter were troubling to Grandparents, the GAL, and the trial court.
{¶36} Undoubtedly Father had undertaken some positive actions in this case.
He completed numerous classes and by all accounts Father had a loving bond with
GB-E. Nevertheless, Father’s struggles with criminal activity, violence, verifiable
employment, and follow-through are all made more troubling in this case because
of the level of care GB-E requires. GB-E’s care was described as a full-time job.
Further, she needs consistency and numerous therapies to thrive. Testimony did not
establish that Father’s life had any regular consistency. In fact, during the final
hearing, Father was about to either be incarcerated for thirty days, with work release,
or placed on house arrest.
{¶37} Father does not dispute that GB-E is largely thriving in Grandparents’
care. Given all of the testimony, and the recommendation of the GAL that
Grandparents should be awarded legal custody, we do not find that this is one of the
exceptional cases where the evidence weighs heavily against the result. If Father is
-14- Case No. 7-25-04
able to successfully complete his probation, establish a regular, verifiable source of
income, and show consistency, then Father will have the opportunity to seek custody
in the future.
{¶38} Based on the record before us, we do not find that the trial court clearly
lost its way by determining that Father was not capable of providing for GB-E’s
special needs, that it would be detrimental to award him custody, and that it was in
GB-E’s best interests to be placed in the legal custody of Grandparents. In re A.O,
M.O., 2025-Ohio-4923, ¶ 26 (10th Dist.); see also In re C.L.H., 2017-Ohio-2925, ¶
24 (12th Dist.);
{¶39} As the record and the evidence presented overwhelmingly support the
trial court’s thorough and well-reasoned decision, Father’s first and second
assignments of error are overruled.
Conclusion
{¶40} Having found no error prejudicial to Father in the particulars assigned
and argued, his assignments of error are overruled and the judgment of the Henry
County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division, is affirmed.
ZIMMERMAN and MILLER, J.J., concur.
-15- Case No. 7-25-04
JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in the opinion of this Court, the assignments of error
are overruled and it is the judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the
trial court is affirmed with costs assessed to Appellant for which judgment is hereby
rendered. The cause is hereby remanded to the trial court for execution of the
judgment for costs.
It is further ordered that the Clerk of this Court certify a copy of this Court’s
judgment entry and opinion to the trial court as the mandate prescribed by App.R.
27; and serve a copy of this Court’s judgment entry and opinion on each party to the
proceedings and note the date of service in the docket. See App.R. 30.
Juergen A. Waldick, Judge
William R. Zimmerman, Judge
Mark C. Miller, Judge
DATED: /jlm
-16-