[Cite as C.B. v. K.R., 2019-Ohio-3621.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

FAYETTE COUNTY 

C.B., 

 

 Appellant, 

 - vs - 

K.R., 

 

 Appellee. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

CASE NO. CA2019-02-002 

 

O P I N I O N 

9/9/2019 

 

APPEAL FROM FAYETTE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

JUVENILE DIVISION 

Case Nos. AD20120747; AD20120748; AD20120749 

C.B., 6254 Greenhaven Avenue, Galloway, Ohio 43119, appellant, pro se 

Judkins & Hayes, LLC, John W. Judkins, 303 West Jefferson Street, P.O. Box 33, 

Greenfield, Ohio 45123, for appellee 

 M. POWELL, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant ("Grandmother") appeals a decision of the Fayette County Court of 

Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting her grandparent visitation. 

{¶ 2} Father and Mother are the parents of three minor children. Father is the son 

of Grandmother. In October 2014, the juvenile court granted legal custody of the three 
Fayette CA2019-02-002 

 - 2 - 

children to appellee, a relative of the children ("Custodian"); Father was granted standard 

parenting time. In June 2016, a civil protection order was issued against Father. Under the 

terms of the order, Father's parenting time was reduced to supervised visitation at 

Grandmother's home every Saturday from 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. On May 2, 2017, the 

juvenile court ordered that Father's parenting time be the same as provided in the CPO. 

{¶ 3} Grandmother lives in Galloway, Ohio; the children live in Washington Court 

House, Ohio. To facilitate Father's parenting time, Grandmother travels 45 minutes to the 

Washington Court House police station where she picks up the children every Saturday at 

1:00 p.m., drives the children to her home where they visit with Father for approximately 

three hours, and then returns the children to the police station, dropping them off at 6:00 

p.m. 

{¶ 4} As a result of criminal charges filed against him, Father anticipated being 

sentenced to incarceration in February 2019, and thus being unavailable to exercise his 

parenting time. Consequently, on October 23, 2018, Grandmother moved for grandparent 

visitation with the children. The motion requested that she be "allow[ed] to exercise Father's 

parenting time." A hearing on the motion was held in January 2015. Father, Mother, and 

Grandmother testified at the hearing. The juvenile court further conducted in-camera 

interviews of the children. 

{¶ 5} Testimony at the hearing revealed that Grandmother has a good relationship 

with the children, has been involved in their lives since the 2007 birth of the oldest 

grandchild, and has been traveling to the Washington Court House police station every 

Saturday since June 2016. Testimony further revealed that Grandmother and Custodian 

do not get along well. Both Father and Mother expressed their wishes that Grandmother 

be granted visitation. During the hearing, Grandmother orally moved for visitation with the 

children every other weekend, from 6:00 p.m. on Friday to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday. 
Fayette CA2019-02-002 

 - 3 - 

{¶ 6} By entry filed on January 22, 2019, the juvenile court found it was "in the best 

interest of the children to allow [Grandmother] to exercise [Father's] visitation schedule as 

requested in the motion." Consequently, the juvenile court granted Grandmother "the same 

visitation under the same conditions as [Father's] as previously ordered by this Court." 

{¶ 7} Grandmother now appeals, raising two assignments of error. 

{¶ 8} Assignment of Error No. 1: 

{¶ 9} THE TRIAL COURT ERRORED NOT TAKING THE BEST INTEREST OF 

THE CHILDREN TRAVEL TIME. (SIC) 

{¶ 10} Grandmother argues the juvenile court erred in overlooking the travel time, 

and thus, failed to consider the children's best interest in fashioning her visitation schedule. 

{¶ 11} R.C. 3109.051(B) provides that a trial court may grant reasonable visitation 

rights to grandparents if the court determines that such visitation is in the child's best 

interest. The trial court has broad discretion in deciding matters regarding visitation rights 

of grandparents. In re Davis, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA99-07-078, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 

830 (Mar. 6, 2000). Therefore, while a trial court's decision regarding visitation time must 

be just, reasonable, and consistent with the best interest of the child, this court will not 

reverse the trial court's decision absent an abuse of discretion. Grover v. Dourson, 12th 

Dist. Preble No. CA2018-07-007, 2019-Ohio-2495, ¶ 36. An abuse of discretion implies 

that the court's attitude was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. 

Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219. When determining whether to grant visitation rights to 

a grandparent, the trial court is required to consider the 16 factors listed in R.C. 

3109.051(D). In re N.C.W., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2013-12-229, 2014-Ohio-3381, ¶ 20. 

{¶ 12} To further a child's best interest, the trial court has the discretion to limit or 

restrict visitation rights. In re I.C., 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2016-11-019, 2017-Ohio-5851, 

¶ 22. "This includes the power to restrict the time and place of visitation, [and] to determine 
Fayette CA2019-02-002 

 - 4 - 

the conditions under which visitation will take place[.]" Anderson v. Anderson, 147 Ohio 

App.3d 513, 2002-Ohio-1156, ¶ 18 (7th Dist.). 

{¶ 13} Upon reviewing the record, we find that the juvenile court properly reviewed, 

discussed, and applied the factors under R.C. 3109.051(D) when fashioning Grandmother's 

visitation schedule and analyzing the children's best interest. The juvenile court considered 

the geographical location of Grandmother's residence and Custodian's residence and the 

distance and travel time between the two as required by R.C. 3109.051(D)(2). The juvenile 

court further considered the children's age as well as their wishes and concerns. We note 

that while most of Grandmother's visitation will take place at her home, as was the case for 

Father's parenting time, her visitation time will in fact be longer than Father's as it will begin 

as soon as she picks up the children at 1:00 p.m. and will not end until 6:00 p.m. when she 

returns them to Custodian. 

{¶ 14} In light of the foregoing, we find that the juvenile court did not abuse its 

discretion in granting visitation to Grandmother every Saturday from 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. 

as requested in her motion. Grandmother's first assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶ 15} Assignment of Error No. 2: 

{¶ 16} [CUSTODIAN] CONTINUES TO VIOLATE COURT ORDER VISITATION 

RIGHTS, JUDGE OVERLOOKED BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN. (SIC) 

{¶ 17} Grandmother argues the juvenile court erred in overlooking the "several times 

[Custodian] has withheld [the] children for visits," and thus, failed to consider the children's 

best interest in fashioning Grandmother's visitation schedule. Grandmother's argument 

ostensibly refers to her testimony that on two or three occasions, she drove to the 

Washington Court House police station to pick up the children only to discover that the 

children were not there. The record indicates that Father was incarcerated on at least one 

of those occasions. Grandmother seemingly asserts that Custodian's prior violations of 
Fayette CA2019-02-002 

 - 5 - 

Father's parenting time were improperly ignored by the juvenile court. 

{¶ 18} There were no pending issues or motions before the juvenile court concerning 

Custodian's alleged violations of Father's parenting time at the time of the hearing. In any 

event, it is well-established that generally, a party cannot appeal an alleged violation of 

another party's right. See In re K.C., 7th Dist. Monroe No. 15 MO 0016, 2016-Ohio-3229; 

Meyers v. Hendrich, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2009-P-0032, 2010-Ohio-4433; In re Mourey, 

4th Dist. Athens No. 02CA48, 2003-Ohio-1870. Thus, Grandmother does not have standing 

to challenge Custodian's violations of Father's parenting time prior to the time Grandmother 

was awarded visitation. We further note that the juvenile court considered Custodian's 

alleged violations when it stated, "the custodian has indicated by her past actions that she 

will comply with the Court's orders regarding visitation but strictly construes them." 

{¶ 19} Grandmother's second assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶ 20} Judgment affirmed. 

 RINGLAND, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur.