[Cite as In re A.D., 2013-Ohio-1308.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

FAYETTE COUNTY 

IN THE MATTER OF: : 

 A.D., et al. : CASE NO. CA2012-07-023 

 

 : O P I N I O N

 4/1/2013 

 : 

 : 

APPEAL FROM FAYETTE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

JUVENILE DIVISION 

Case Nos. 11AND0415 and 11AND0416 

Jennifer Hitt, 63 North Main Street, Suite B, London, Ohio 43140, for appellant, Milisa Van 

Stenis 

Raymond Donato, 2103 Beach Village Circle, Palm Coast, Florida 32137, appellee, pro se 

Jess C. Weade, Fayette County Prosecuting Attorney, James B. Roach, 110 East Court 

Street, Washington C.H., Ohio 43160, for Fayette County Children Services 

 RINGLAND, J. 

{¶ 1} Appellant, Milisa Van Stenis (Mother), appeals a decision of the Fayette County 

Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting legal custody of her children to Raymond 

Donato (Father). 

{¶ 2} Mother and Father are the parents of two minor children, A.D and G.D. On July 

6, 2011, temporary custody of the children was granted to Fayette County Department of Job 
Fayette CA2012-07-023

 - 2 - 

and Family Services, Children Services Division (FCDJFS) after FJCDJFS filed complaints 

alleging that A.D. and G.D. were neglected and dependent children. The basis for the 

complaints was the arrest and subsequent incarceration of Mother for a probation violation 

relating to her illegal use of drugs. 

{¶ 3} On August 23, 2011, FCDJFS moved to withdraw the counts in the complaints 

which alleged that the children were neglected. Mother then entered admissions that the 

minor children were dependent under R.C. 2151.04. Father was duly served but was in 

default for failing to appear or answer in the matters. The trial court found A.D. and G.D. to 

be dependent children. 

{¶ 4} On August 30, 2011, Father filed a pro se motion for custody of the children. 

Following a dispositional hearing on September 22, 2011, the trial court issued a decision 

maintaining temporary custody with FCDJFS. 

{¶ 5} On December 7, 2011, FCDJFS filed a motion to modify the dispositional 

orders by granting custody of the children to Father. On March 6, 2012, a hearing was held 

on FCDJFS' motion to modify the dispositional orders and on Father's motion for custody. 

Immediately after the hearing, FCDJFS placed the children with Father and they were 

allowed to travel with Father to his home in Florida.1

 On March 8, 2012, Mother filed a 

motion objecting to FCDJFS' placement of the children with Father. On March 9, 2012, the 

trial court denied the motions of FCDJFS and Father. 

{¶ 6} On June 13, 2012, a hearing was again held on FCDJFS' motion to modify the 

dispositional orders and Father's motion for custody, as well as on Mother's objection to the 

placement of the children by FCDJFS with Father. On July 23, 2012, the trial court granted 

 

1 While we note the presumptuous nature of FCDJFS' placement of the children with Father while the custody 

decision was under advisement with the trial court, the issue of whether FCDJFS was in contempt is not before 

us and we therefore decline to address the issue. 
Fayette CA2012-07-023

 - 3 - 

legal custody of the children to Father, named Father as the residential parent, and set forth 

the visitation schedule for Mother. 

{¶ 7} Mother appeals the trial court's decision, raising the following assignments of 

error: 

{¶ 8} Assignment of Error No. 1: 

{¶ 9} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY GRANTING 

LEGAL CUSTODY OF THE MINOR CHILDREN TO FATHER AND TERMINATING 

FAYETTE COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES INVOLVEMENT. 

{¶ 10} Assignment of Error No. 2: 

{¶ 11} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING BY 

A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE BEST 

INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN TO BE PLACED IN THE LEGAL CUSTODY OF THEIR 

FATHER. 

{¶ 12} As both of Mother's assignments of error hinge on whether the trial court 

properly found that it would be in the best interests of the children to be placed in the legal 

custody of Father, we address those assignments of error together. 

{¶ 13} R.C. 2151.23 sets forth the original jurisdiction of juvenile courts, and states 

that "the juvenile court shall exercise its jurisdiction in child custody matters in accordance 

with sections 3109.04 and 3127.01 to 3127.53 of the Revised Code." R.C. 2151.23(F)(1). 

"When making the allocation of the parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the 

children * * * in an original proceeding or in any proceeding for modification of a prior order of 

the court making the allocation, the court shall take into account that which would be in the 

best interest of the children." R.C. 3109.04(B)(1). 

{¶ 14} In order to determine the best interest of a child, R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) requires 

the juvenile court to consider all relevant factors. In re M. M., 12th Dist. No. CA2010-12-034, 
Fayette CA2012-07-023

 - 4 - 

2011-Ohio-3913, ¶ 9. These factors include, but are not limited to (1) the wishes of the 

parents, (2) the child's interaction and interrelationship with his parents, siblings, and other 

persons who may significantly affect the child's best interest, (3) the child's adjustment to 

home, school and community, (4) the mental and physical health of all persons involved, (5) 

and the likelihood that the caregiver would honor and facilitate or had honored and facilitated 

visitation and parenting time. In re A.L.H., 12th Dist. No. CA2010-02-004, 2010-Ohio-5425, ¶ 

9. 

{¶ 15} Trial courts are entitled to broad discretion in custody proceedings. Davis v. 

Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (1997), paragraph one of the syllabus. As "custody issues are 

some of the most difficult and agonizing decisions a trial judge must make," the judge must 

be given "wide latitude in considering all the evidence" and the decision must not be reversed 

absent an abuse of discretion. Id. at 418. The term abuse of discretion "connotes more than 

an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or 

unconscionable." Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). 

{¶ 16} We presume that the trial court's findings are correct because the trial court is 

"best able to view the witnesses and observe their demeanor, gestures and voice inflections, 

and use these observations in weighing the credibility of the proffered testimony." Seasons 

Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80 (1984). Therefore, deferential review in a child 

custody determination is especially crucial "where there may be much evident in the parties' 

demeanor and attitude that does not translate to the record well." Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 

at 419. (Emphasis sic.) 

{¶ 17} In its entry, the trial court found that the children were doing well in their 

placement with Father. The court further found that Father is "able to meet their basic needs. 

He is employed and has housing. Since being in Florida, the children have done better in 

school and have had perfect attendance. The girls are in the process of starting counseling 
Fayette CA2012-07-023

 - 5 - 

and have medical cards in place." The court recognized that the children bonded with Father 

and that he was fulfilling the requirements of his case plan. The entry also notes that the 

children were able to maintain telephone contact with Mother while living with Father. 

{¶ 18} Concerning the status of Mother, the court found that she "recently completed 

her drug rehabilitation program. She has not started her parenting classes yet. She is 

unemployed. Neither [M]other nor stepfather has a valid driver's license." 

{¶ 19} Taking those factors into consideration, the trial court found that "it is in the best 

interest and welfare of the minor children to grant custody to their [F]ather." While the 

preferred method would be for the trial court to specifically cite R .C. 3109.04(F)(1) and walk 

through the relevant best interests factors individually, we find that the trial court properly 

considered those relevant factors in its decision regardless of whether they were listed 

explicitly. Therefore, we cannot find that the trial court abused its discretion in granting legal 

custody of the children to Father. 

{¶ 20} In light of the foregoing, having found that the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion in granting custody of the children to Father where it considered the relevant 

factors and gave its reasoning for doing so, Mother's two assignments of error are overruled. 

{¶ 21} Judgment affirmed. 

HENDRICKSON, P.J., and S. POWELL, J., concur.