Background
Father and Mother, who were never married, had a child together born in November 2022. In October 2023, father was arrested on outstanding warrants during a traffic stop, and methamphetamine was found in mother’s purse. The child was placed in the temporary custody of a maternal aunt. Father was eventually confirmed as the biological parent through genetic testing and was added to the family case plan in April 2024.
After extended proceedings, the trial court placed the child in mother’s legal custody and awarded father at least one supervised visit per month, with the possibility of working toward unsupervised time as recommended by a counselor. Father appealed, arguing the trial court erred by not specifying a minimum visitation time and by issuing a vague order that gave mother control over his parenting time.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth District affirmed the trial court’s visitation order. The court found the order was not unconstitutionally vague and did not violate father’s due process rights. The court noted that father had been absent from the child’s life for an extended period and had only recently become involved after genetic testing confirmed paternity. The graduated approach was reasonable.
The court rejected father’s argument that the order gave mother sole control over visitation, noting that the trial court ordered at least one supervised visit per month. If mother refused to comply, father had available remedies including filing a motion for additional orders or a contempt motion.
Key Takeaways
- A juvenile court’s visitation order requiring at least one supervised visit per month with a pathway toward unsupervised time is sufficiently specific to satisfy due process.
- A parent who was absent from a child’s life may receive a graduated visitation schedule that starts with limited supervised contact.
- If the custodial parent fails to comply with a visitation order, the noncustodial parent’s remedy is to seek additional court orders or file for contempt.
Why It Matters
This case addresses a common challenge in Ohio juvenile and family court proceedings: balancing a newly established parent’s right to visitation with the child’s need for stability. Practitioners representing parents new to the child’s life should expect graduated visitation schedules and be prepared to demonstrate progress toward unsupervised time. The decision also provides a roadmap for enforcement when the custodial parent obstructs visitation.