Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re J.A.T.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

August 2, 2018

IN RE: J.A.T., ET AL. Minor Children Appeal by A.T., Father

          Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division Case Nos. CU 17108860 and CU 17108861

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT-FATHER Jason L. Carter

          APPELLEE-MOTHER S. D., pro se.

          GUARDIAN AD LITEM John M. Stryker Stryker Law, Co., Ltd.

          BEFORE: Kilbane, P.J., McCormack, J., and Laster Mays, J.

          JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

          MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J.

         {¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, A.T. ("Father"), appeals from the juvenile court's order adopting the magistrate's decision denying his application for custody, and naming defendant-appellee, S.D. ("Mother"), the residential parent and legal custodian of their minor children, J. AT. and P.N.T. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

         {¶2} In June 2017, Father filed an application to determine custody of his two minor children, J.A.T. and P.N.T. Father also contemporaneously filed a motion for emergency temporary custody of the children.

         {¶3} In his affidavit in support of his application, Father averred that Mother had left the children in his care in late May 2017, and that "her whereabouts are unknown." Father explained that he sought custody because he had no access to the children's medical cards and daycare swipe cards. He further stated that for the past two years, Mother had left the children in his care each week, from Thursday to Monday. Father explained that he sought residential custody of the children to provide them a stable environment because Mother frequently moved, and her home "was [recently] shot up * * * while the children were present." Father also sought emergency custody so that he could make medical decisions and enroll the children in school and an "appropriate daycare."

         {¶4} In July 2017, a juvenile court magistrate held a hearing on Father's motion for emergency custody. The magistrate's pretrial order reflects that, at the hearing, Father advised the court that he no longer wished to proceed with his motion for emergency custody and only sought a shared parenting plan. Mother objected to shared parenting, but the parties agreed to arrange for visitation for Father and the children. The magistrate set the matter for trial on Father's application for custody, and ordered that "[t]he parties shall file his/her proposed Shared Parenting Plan a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to the trial date."

         {¶5} In October 2017, the matter proceeded to trial before the magistrate. The court heard the testimony of both Father and Mother and the children's guardian ad litem ("GAL").

         {¶6} Father testified that he felt he deserved custody of the children because he had "always been there since day one, together or not, for my kids regardless." Father further stated that he "fe[lt] comfortable with the shared custody being a full-time father."

         {¶7} The trial court then asked Father to clarify whether he was asking for shared custody with Mother. When Father replied that he did seek shared custody, the magistrate explained that the court could not consider shared parenting because there was no agreement between the parties, and Father had failed to file a proposed shared parenting plan at least 30 days prior to trial as required under R.C. 3109.04 and ordered in the July 2017 pretrial order. The magistrate further explained that the court could only consider legal custody to either party, and that it was Father's "obligation to show enough evidence for [the court] to be able to consider why legal custody to [Father] is in the children's best interest."

         {¶8} Father contended that awarding him custody of the children was in their best interest "legal-wise and finance-wise." Father said he felt that he could provide more for the kids than Mother because he had a steady, fulltime job. He explained that if he was granted custody of the children, he would have the assistance of his retired mother. He also explained that he believes it to be in the children's best interest to live with him and attend school in the district in which he lives. Father asserted that there were no beds for the children at ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.