In re S.R.

Summary

The Ohio Second District Court of Appeals affirmed an order granting maternal grandfather and his wife legal custody of S.R. over the child’s biological father. The court held that the father waived challenges to the admission of guardian ad litem reports and failed to establish plain error regarding the guardian ad litem’s testimony or alleged noncompliance with Sup.R. 48. The court also upheld the finding that the father was unsuitable based on evidence of physical and emotional abuse and that awarding him custody would be detrimental to the child.

Holdings

1. Father was precluded from challenging the admission of the guardian ad litem reports because his trial counsel stipulated to their admission.
2. The trial court did not plainly err by considering the guardian ad litem's testimony; Sup.R. 48 provides general administrative guidelines and noncompliance does not automatically require exclusion of a guardian ad litem's report, testimony, or recommendation.
3. The trial court's finding that Father was an unsuitable custodian was supported by competent, credible evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that awarding legal custody of S.R. to Maternal Grandfather and D.N. was in S.R.'s best interest.
5. Father could not challenge the trial court's investigation and admission of the North Carolina custody records and Ohio civil protection order because he invited and consented to those actions.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court plainly erred or otherwise erred by considering the guardian ad litem's reports and testimony despite alleged bias and noncompliance with Sup.R. 48.
2. Whether the finding that Father was an unsuitable custodian was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by finding that awarding legal custody to Maternal Grandfather and D.N. was in S.R.'s best interest.
4. Whether the trial court erred by locating and admitting court records concerning a North Carolina custody action and an Ohio civil protection order.

Disposition

affirmed