Skip to content Skip to main navigation Skip to footer
Ohio Case Law

In re A.B., 2025-Ohio-4771

Case Information

Court: Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second Appellate District, Miami County
Date: 2025-10-17
Citation: 2025-Ohio-4771
Read the Opinion

Summary

Summary: The Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a mother’s motion to terminate a prior order granting legal custody of her child to the maternal grandparents, holding that the mother failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances required by statute.

Key Holdings

  • A motion to terminate or modify a legal custody order in a dependency case must show a change in circumstances since the order was issued
  • Issues that could have been raised on direct appeal from the original custody order are barred by res judicata
  • The failure to file a transcript of the magistrate’s hearing precludes meaningful review of objections to the magistrate’s decision
  • A pro se litigant is held to the same procedural standards as a party represented by counsel

More Information

This case involved a mother’s attempt to regain legal custody of her child, A.B., who had been adjudicated dependent in 2021 and placed in the legal custody of the maternal grandparents. In 2024, the mother filed a lengthy motion alleging improprieties by the court, magistrate, child services, and others involved in the original custody proceedings. She also alleged fraudulent conduct and demanded the return of custody.

The trial court denied the motion, finding that the mother failed to allege or establish a change in circumstances as required by R.C. 2151.42(B). On appeal, the mother raised numerous procedural and substantive arguments, including claims of judicial bias, improper affidavits, denial of discovery, lack of appointment of a GAL, and refusal to provide a transcript at the state’s expense.

The appellate court rejected each argument. It found that the mother’s motion was legally insufficient without alleging a change in circumstances and that prior errors not appealed were barred by res judicata. The court held that her failure to request a transcript of the 2025 hearing precluded meaningful review, and noted that she failed to timely seek recusal of the magistrate or file proper discovery motions.

Ultimately, the court emphasized that regardless of the procedural missteps or allegations of misconduct, the statutory requirement of a substantial change in circumstances was not met, and thus the trial court correctly denied the motion to modify custody. The decision reinforces the high threshold for modifying custody orders in dependency cases and the necessity of procedural compliance, even for pro se litigants.