Background
Nicole Stargell El Bey and Mengestu Dejene had two children. A juvenile-court order gave Dejene legal custody and gave Stargell parenting time, requiring weekend exchanges at the West Carrollton Police Department by 6:00 p.m., with a half-hour grace period.
After a January 2025 weekend visit, Stargell did not return the children by 6:30 p.m. She contacted police two days later, said she would not return them, and asserted that federal paperwork superseded Dejene’s custody order. Police determined the paperwork did not address custody or parenting time. Following a bench trial, Stargell was convicted of interference with custody and sentenced to 180 days in jail, with 99 days suspended, plus three years of supervised probation.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District affirmed. Stargell’s failure to return the children after her court-ordered parenting time amounted to “keeping or harboring” them under Ohio’s interference-with-custody statute, rather than “enticing or taking” them.
That distinction foreclosed Stargell’s proposed defense that she reasonably acted to protect the children’s health or safety; under the statute, that defense applies to enticing or taking a child, not keeping or harboring one. Because the body-camera footage and the challenged exhibits concerned that unavailable defense, they were irrelevant. The court further held that any evidentiary error would have been harmless in the bench trial because nothing showed the trial judge relied on improper hearsay, and the undisputed evidence established that Stargell retained the children for two days beyond her authorized parenting time.
Key Takeaways
- A parent with visitation rights may commit interference with custody by retaining children beyond court-authorized parenting time.
- The health-and-safety affirmative defense applies to enticing or taking a child, not to keeping or harboring a child.
- In a bench trial, an evidentiary error will not warrant reversal absent an effect on substantial rights or a showing that the judge relied on improper evidence.
Why It Matters
The decision draws a firm statutory line between taking a child from a custodian and refusing to return a child after authorized parenting time. A parent alleging safety concerns in the latter circumstance cannot rely on the taking-or-enticing defense to justify withholding the child.
The court emphasized that the appropriate route for a parent who already has the child is to report safety concerns to law enforcement or the court that issued the custody order, rather than unilaterally retaining the child.