[Cite as In re A.B., 2019-Ohio-3537.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

CLERMONT COUNTY 

IN RE: 

 A.B. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

CASE NO. CA2019-01-005 

O P I N I O N 

9/3/2019 

APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

JUVENILE DIVISION 

Case No. 2017JC04983 

D. Vincent Faris, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas Horton, 76 South 

Riverside Drive, 2nd Floor, Batavia, Ohio 45103, for appellee 

Kenneth M. Miller, 717 West Plane Street, P.O. Box 378, Bethel, Ohio 45106, for appellee 

father 

Dever Law Firm, Scott A. Hoberg, 9146 Cincinnati Columbus Road, West Chester, Ohio 

45069, for appellant 

CASA for Clermont Kids, Nathan Bell, 2339 Clermont Center Drive, Batavia, Ohio 45103, 

guardian ad litem 

 RINGLAND, P.J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Kylee Bowling ("Mother"), appeals the decision of the Clermont 

County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, denying her motion for additional 

parenting time. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm. 
Clermont CA2019-01-005 

 - 2 - 

{¶ 2} Mother and Colton Brandenburg ("Father") are the parents of A.B., a girl born in 

July 2016. Initially, Mother was the sole caretaker and provider for A.B. and her twin sister. 

However, when the children reached six months old, Father began visiting with them and 

ultimately "served [Mother] with DNA test papers" to establish his paternity of the children. 

Thereafter, Father began exercising regular parenting time with A.B. and her sister. 

{¶ 3} In the early morning hours of March 24, 2017, Mother discovered blood in 

A.B.'s diaper. According to Mother, she had dropped the children off at her boyfriend's 

parent's home on her way to work on March 23, 2017. Aside from five hours in which the 

children were with Father, the children stayed at Mother's boyfriend's parent's home until 

Mother picked them up around midnight. Upon discovering the blood in the baby's diaper, 

Mother took A.B. to the hospital. After A.B. was examined, it was determined that she had 

suffered a tear to her hymen, which the hospital suspected was a result of sexual abuse. 

Because the hospital suspected A.B. had been abused, it notified Clermont County 

Children's Protective Services ("CPS") and the Clermont County Sherriff's office. The 

hospital then completed a rape kit on A.B., which revealed the presence of a single sperm 

cell in A.B.'s mouth. 

{¶ 4} In June 2017 Father filed a motion to establish parental rights and 

responsibilities and a motion for temporary emergency custody. Two days later, CPS filed a 

complaint based upon the sexual abuse allegations. The complaint alleged that A.B. was 

abused, and further indicated that because no perpetrator had been identified and A.B. was 

with both parents on the date the injury occurred, CPS was concerned for A.B.'s safety. 

Accordingly, CPS requested the court to inquire into the alleged abuse and to either grant 

temporary custody of A.B. to CPS or to grant temporary custody to Mother with protective 

supervision. 

{¶ 5} Thereafter, Father withdrew his motion for temporary emergency custody and 
Clermont CA2019-01-005 

 - 3 - 

A.B. was adjudicated abused. As a result, CPS received temporary custody of A.B. and she 

was placed in the care of Mother's great aunt and uncle. A case plan was then established, 

which described the concerns Mother and Father needed to address in order to reunify with 

A.B. 

{¶ 6} In October 2017 a hearing was held before a magistrate regarding Father's 

June 2017 motion to establish parental rights and responsibilities. At the hearing, the 

investigator assigned to A.B.'s case testified that his investigation into the sexual assault of 

A.B. remained open but was in inactive status. The investigator described his investigation 

into the incident, and indicated he was able to exclude Father as a suspect, but still had "a lot 

of concerns" with excluding Mother. According to the investigator, he had interviewed Mother 

extensively, and determined she was the only individual alone with A.B. on the night of the 

incident. He further testified that while he found Father credible, he had concerns with 

Mother's credibility. 

{¶ 7} A.B.'s guardian ad litem also testified at trial and recommended that A.B. be 

placed with Father. According to the guardian ad litem, she had no apprehensions regarding 

Father, but was concerned with Mother's history of mental illness, the investigator's inability 

to exclude Mother as a suspect in the criminal case, and certain evidence that Mother 

favored A.B.'s sister over A.B. 

{¶ 8} The caseworker assigned to A.B.'s case also testified at trial, and 

recommended granting custody of A.B to Father. Specifically, the caseworker noted that her 

recommendation was based, in part, on the inconsistencies in the criminal case with Mother. 

{¶ 9} After trial, the magistrate found that it was in the best interest of A.B. to be in 

the legal custody of Father, subject to protective supervision by CPS. The magistrate further 

ordered CPS to provide Mother with substantial contact with A.B. and ordered Father to 

cooperate with Mother's contact with the children. Mother objected to the magistrate's 
Clermont CA2019-01-005 

 - 4 - 

decision. After a hearing, the juvenile court issued a decision and judgment entry overruling 

Mother's objections and adopting the magistrate's decision. Mother did not appeal the 

juvenile court's decision. 

{¶ 10} Thereafter, CPS filed a "motion to terminate protective supervision and 

maintain custody with [Father]." Mother then filed a motion for additional parenting time. In 

her motion, Mother argued she had substantially completed all aspects of her case plan 

goals and that it was in A.B.'s best interest to have additional parenting time with Mother. In 

August 2018, a hearing was held before a magistrate regarding the two motions. 

{¶ 11} At the hearing, Mother testified that she had supervised visitation with A.B. a 

"couple days a week" for two or three hours, but she feels like, as A.B.'s mother, "[she] 

deserve[s] just as much time as [Father] has with [A.B.]" Mother further indicated she has 

asked for more time and that Father was agreeable to her request, but "sometimes it just 

doesn't line up with everyone's schedules." Mother requested to have A.B. fifty percent of 

the time and proposed a schedule where she would assist in providing transportation. 

However, on cross-examination, Mother admitted that she did not have a driver's license and 

relied on friends to go to and from her place of employment. In order to exercise her 

parenting time, Mother testified she would drive to visit A.B., despite not having a valid 

license, which had already resulted in two citations for driving under suspension, one of 

which was pending at the time of the hearing. 

{¶ 12} Mother also indicated that she was unsure what caused CPS to recommend 

supervised visitation and confirmed she had not followed up with the police officers since she 

was last in court because she "didn't feel [she] needed to." Mother then testified she was 

aware she had supervised visitation because Father was cleared by the police and she was 

not. 

{¶ 13} In addition to Mother, A.B.'s caseworker also testified at the hearing. According 
Clermont CA2019-01-005 

 - 5 - 

to the caseworker, although Mother had completed several of her case plan services, she 

remained of the opinion that Mother's visitation should be supervised. The caseworker 

further testified that in order for CPS to remove its recommendation of supervised visitation, 

Mother would need to be cleared as a suspect in the criminal investigation of A.B.'s sexual 

abuse. 

{¶ 14} In light of the evidence presented at the hearing, the magistrate granted CPS's 

motion, and terminated the prior order of protective supervision. The magistrate then denied 

Mother's motion and ordered that visitation between Mother and A.B. was to remain 

supervised and occur at times agreed upon by the parties. The magistrate further ordered 

that Father was to assist Mother with transportation for one visit per week. 

{¶ 15} Thereafter, Mother requested findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding 

the decision on her motion for additional parenting time. The magistrate issued the 

requested findings of fact and conclusions of law, and Mother filed objections to the 

magistrate's decision shortly thereafter. After a hearing, the juvenile court overruled Mother's 

objections and adopted the magistrate's decision. 

{¶ 16} Mother now appeals, raising one assignment of error for our review. 

{¶ 17} Assignment of Error No. 1: 

{¶ 18} IN A DEPENDENCY CASE, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS DECISION 

AND ORDER REQUIRING MOTHER'S VISITATION TO BE SUPERVISED IN GRANTING 

LEGAL CUSTODY TO FATHER. 

{¶ 19} Mother argues the juvenile court abused its discretion when it granted legal 

custody to Father and restricted Mother's visitation, despite evidence that she completed her 

case plan services. Mother further claims "the legal custody proceeding failed to 

demonstrate that restricting Mother's visitation while granting legal custody to Father was in 

the child's best interest." 
Clermont CA2019-01-005 

 - 6 - 

{¶ 20} The granting of visitation rights is governed by R.C. 3109.051. The only 

restriction placed on the trial court by this provision is that a visitation order must be "just and 

reasonable." R.C. 3109.051(A). Thus, the trial court has broad discretion in determining 

matters related to visitation and an appellate court will not reverse a trial court's determination 

regarding visitation issues absent an abuse of discretion. Appleby v. Appleby, 24 Ohio St. 3d 

39, 41 (1986); In re L.P., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2005-04-089, 2006-Ohio-745, ¶ 6. An 

abuse of discretion implies that the court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or 

unconscionable, and not merely an error of law or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 

Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). 

{¶ 21} In considering modification of visitation rights, the trial court must consider the 

factors enumerated in R.C. 3109.051(D), which include: prior interrelationships with parents 

and relatives; the geographical distance between parents; the available time of both the child 

and parents; age of the child; child's adjustment to home, school and community; wishes and 

concerns of the child; health and safety of the child; child's time with other siblings; mental 

and physical health of all parties; each parent's willingness to reschedule missed parenting 

time; whether the residential parent has denied the other parent's rights to parenting time; 

whether either parent is establishing a residence outside the state; and any other factor in the 

best interest of the child. 

{¶ 22} In the instant matter, we find the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in 

denying Mother's motion for additional unsupervised parenting time. In its decision, the 

juvenile court analyzed each of the factors contained in R.C. 3109.051(D). In doing so, the 

juvenile court found that many of the applicable factors weighed in favor of Father. 

Specifically, the juvenile court found that while Father is bonded and attached to A.B., 

Mother's interaction with the child was limited and Mother had missed opportunities to visit 

with A.B. Moreover, the juvenile court noted that while both parents could provide A.B. with a 
Clermont CA2019-01-005 

 - 7 - 

safe living environment, there was an unresolved issue with the criminal investigation, and 

Mother had yet to clear her name. The juvenile court also found that A.B. had adjusted to life 

in Father's home and that, unlike Mother, there was no evidence Father had any mental or 

physical health issues. 

{¶ 23} The juvenile court further found that while Mother desired equal parenting time 

with Father, or alternatively, standard parenting time, the facts of the case warranted a 

deviation as outlined by the magistrate. According to the juvenile court, "[r]eason still exists 

for [Mother] to have only supervised parenting time with the child[,]" including "questions 

unanswered as to the perpetrator of the sexual abuse" upon A.B. 

{¶ 24} Mother first argues that the juvenile court improperly concluded that Mother's 

visitation should remain supervised due to "abuse involving the discovery of semen from an 

unknown perpetrator." Mother claims the evidence presented provided several other 

opportunities where the abuse could have occurred from others, and due to the discovery of 

semen, Mother faces a "biological hurdle" to be the perpetrator. However, as the juvenile 

court found, the evidence of semen "certainly does not eliminate the possibility of 

involvement" by Mother. Rather, the record reflects that through his investigation, the 

investigator was able discern that Mother was the only individual who was alone with the 

child the day of the incident, and that he had concerns with eliminating Mother as a suspect, 

despite the presence of semen in A.B.'s mouth. According to the record, Mother was the 

only individual the investigator had remaining concerns about. Additionally, the investigator 

testified that Father was eliminated as a suspect, and that he had no concerns with Father. 

This conclusion was reinforced by the guardian ad litem and A.B.'s caseworker. Conversely, 

after observing Mother, the investigator and juvenile court raised questions regarding her 

credibility, and the guardian ad litem and caseworker had lingering concerns with her 

potential involvement in the abuse of A.B. 
Clermont CA2019-01-005 

 - 8 - 

{¶ 25} The record also reflects that Mother has not taken any steps to eliminate 

herself as a suspect in the investigation, as she has not followed up with the investigator 

since the legal custody determination. However, it is evident that Mother was aware that 

CPS would not recommend unsupervised visitation with A.B. unless Mother was cleared as a 

suspect in the criminal investigation. Notably, Mother does not dispute that she has not been 

excluded as a suspect in the criminal investigation. In light of this fact, we find the record 

supports the juvenile court's finding that Mother's attitude and behavior toward the criminal 

investigation is reason for concern and supports the determination that supervised visitation 

is in A.B.'s best interest. 

{¶ 26} Mother next argues the juvenile court failed to properly acknowledge the 

completion of services that Mother made in the case. Specifically, Mother claims the juvenile 

court failed to acknowledge that she had finished parenting classes successfully; she had 

adequate income and housing; the flexibility of her work schedule; and that she was in 

counseling and taking her prescribed psychotropic medication. However, the record reflects 

that the juvenile court considered the progress identified by Mother, but found that A.B.'s 

bond, stability, and safety while with Father were of greater weight. Additionally, the record 

reflects that although Mother made progress on the case plan services, she has missed visits 

with A.B., and failed to utilize additional visitation time Father agreed to make available. As 

such, Mother has presented no evidence that increased unsupervised visitation would be in 

A.B.'s best interest, or that she would take advantage of such visitation if it were awarded. 

Therefore, we find no error in the juvenile court's weighing of the best interest factors under 

R.C. 3109.051(D), and find that its determination is adequately supported by the record. 

{¶ 27} Finding no error in the juvenile court's decision, Mother's argument that the 

juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her motion for additional unsupervised 

parenting time lacks merit. Accordingly, Mother's assignment of error is overruled. 
Clermont CA2019-01-005 

 - 9 - 

{¶ 28} Judgment affirmed. 

 PIPER and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.