Background
Jason Leschinski and Jacklyn Smith, who were never married, informally arranged parenting time for their child until Leschinski learned that Smith’s live-in boyfriend, whom she later married, had been charged with raping his former stepdaughter. Leschinski obtained emergency temporary custody in August 2023. The parties later agreed that he would retain temporary custody and Smith would receive supervised parenting time while the case remained pending.
At the November 2025 custody trial, the alleged victim described sexual abuse beginning when she was 13, and law-enforcement officers testified that physical evidence corroborated part of her account and that mishandling of electronic evidence impaired the prosecution. Smith’s husband had pleaded guilty to amended felony obstruction-of-justice charges. The guardian ad litem expressed concern that Smith minimized the allegations and recommended custody to Leschinski. The trial court awarded him legal custody, granted Smith supervised parenting time, and directed that her husband have no contact with the child.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed. It first concluded that Smith lacked standing to assert rights belonging solely to her husband, who was not a party to the custody case. Although her appellate brief also failed in several respects to comply with Ohio’s briefing rules, the court reviewed all four assignments of error in the interests of justice and finality.
The court held that the domestic-relations court properly considered testimony about Smith’s husband as part of the child’s best-interest analysis under R.C. 3109.04. The trial court did not adjudicate the husband’s criminal liability or enter a judgment against him; it evaluated his presence in Smith’s household and Smith’s judgment, credibility, and minimization of potential danger to the child. Competent, credible evidence supported the custody decision.
The court also rejected Smith’s arguments based on earlier Pike County domestic-relations proceedings, which involved different parties, children, facts, and custody issues. Her challenge to the 2023 emergency order was moot because the final custody judgment superseded the temporary order, and the record showed that Smith had continued the initial hearing, agreed to interim custody terms, and later received a full trial on the merits.
Key Takeaways
- A parent generally lacks standing to assert appellate claims based solely on the rights of a nonparty household member.
- In an original custody determination, a court may consider evidence concerning any household member who may significantly affect the child’s welfare, even without adjudicating that person’s criminal liability.
- A final custody judgment based on a full best-interest hearing supersedes an interlocutory emergency custody order and generally renders challenges to that temporary order moot.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Ohio domestic-relations courts have broad discretion to evaluate a child’s entire proposed living environment. Criminal convictions are not the only relevant evidence: testimony about potential abuse, household safety, and a parent’s response to credible allegations may bear directly on the parent’s judgment and the child’s best interests.
The opinion also underscores two appellate limits. A parent cannot ordinarily litigate a nonparty spouse’s rights, and objections to temporary custody procedures may become moot once the court enters a final custody decree following a full merits trial.