In re C.B.

662 S.E.2d 579 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008) · Ohio Court of Appeals · August 6, 2025 · No. 31254

Summary

This appellate decision reviews a juvenile court's order restricting a father's visitation with his daughter following a child welfare proceeding. The father appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by placing visitation solely in the mother's discretion rather than establishing a fixed schedule. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding that the restrictions were reasonable given the father's lack of cooperation with case plan objectives, his history of abandonment, and the child's expressed wishes and trauma. The court held that leaving visitation parameters to the mother's discretion, while considering the child's wishes and counselor recommendations, did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

Court
Ohio Court of Appeals
Writing for the Court
Stevenson; Sutton; Carr
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
August 6, 2025
Docket number
31254
Procedural posture
Appeal from judgment of Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division
Standard of review
abuse of discretion
Precedential value
published
Parties
Father v. Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

visitationfamily law

Practice areas

family law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by limiting Father’s visitation to the discretion of Mother and requiring supervision
  2. Whether the visitation order was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable

Holdings

  1. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion; the visitation restriction is permissible and not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.

Key quotations

This Court will not reverse a visitation order unless the order was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. (¶15)
A noncustodial parent retains residual parent rights, responsibilities, and certain privileges including the “privilege of reasonable visitation[.]” See R.C. 2151.353(A)(3)(c); R.C. 2151.011(B)(50). (¶16)

Factual background

Father and Mother are the biological, never‑married parents of C.B. Father obtained a companionship order in 2019. After abuse allegations, C.B. was placed with maternal grandparents, then removed and placed in temporary custody of the Children Services Board. Father repeatedly refused case‑plan services, while Mother complied. The juvenile court limited Father’s visitation to Mother’s discretion, considering the child’s wishes and counselor’s input.

Procedural history

The juvenile court placed C.B. in temporary custody, granted legal custody to the maternal grandparents, later removed the grandparents, and ordered visitation for Father to be at Mother’s discretion, subject to the child’s wishes and counselor’s recommendations. Father appealed the visitation restriction.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…