[Cite as In re P.B., 2021-Ohio-414.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WARREN COUNTY 

IN RE: 

 P.B. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

CASE NO. CA2019-10-108 

O P I N I O N 

2/16/2021 

APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

JUVENILE DIVISION 

Case No. 17-D000147 

Eric L. Anderson, 3805 Edwards Road, Suite 550, Cincinnati Ohio 45209, for appellant 

David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, Kirsten A. Brandt, 520 Justice 

Drive, Lebanon, Ohio 45036, for appellee, Warren County Childrens' Services 

 

Mark Raines, 246 High Street, Hamilton, Ohio 45066, for appellee, Father 

James A. Dearie, 12 East Warren Street, Lebanon, Ohio 45036, for appellee, Mother 

Tibbs Law Office, Sarah E. Michel, 1329 East Kemper Road, Suite 4230, Cincinnati, Ohio 

45246, for appellees, Jeremy and Julie Humble 

Griff Nowicki, 202 N. Limestone Street, Suite 250, Springfield, Ohio 45503, for appellees, 

Coral Beach-Johnson and Loretta Johnson 

 

Andrea Ostrowski, 20 South Main Street, Springboro, Ohio 45066, guardian ad litem 

 M. POWELL, P.J.
Warren CA2019-10-108 

 - 2 - 

{¶ 1} Appellant, the biological grandfather of P.B., appeals the decision of the 

Warren County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting legal custody of P.B. 

to appellees, Jeremy and Julie Humble (collectively, the "Humbles"). For the reasons 

outlined below, we affirm the juvenile court's decision. 

{¶ 2} P.B. was born on August 7, 2016. P.B.'s father was initially unknown. On 

April 6, 2017, Warren County Children Services (WCCS) filed a complaint with the juvenile 

court alleging that P.B. was a dependent child. According to the complaint, P.B. had been 

injured while in Mother's care and there were allegations that Mother was abusive. 

{¶ 3} On September 13, 2017, P.B. was placed into the emergency shelter care of 

WCCS who then placed him in foster care with the Humbles. Subsequently, P.B. was 

adjudicated a dependent child and placed in the temporary custody of WCCS. P.B. was 

continued in the foster care of the Humbles, where he has remained throughout the 

pendency of this case. 

{¶ 4} WCCS had initially sought reunification between P.B. and Mother. However, 

after WCCS obtained a six-month extension of the juvenile court's order for temporary 

custody in September 2018, Mother failed a drug test and was no longer compliant with her 

case plan. Based upon these issues, WCCS identified Roy and Loretta Johnson 

(collectively, the "Johnsons") as a potential placement for P.B. The Johnsons have custody 

of P.B.'s half-sister, A.J., who is the child of Mother and the Johnsons' son. 

{¶ 5} In March 2019, WCCS sought a second sixth-month temporary custody 

extension. In its motion, WCCS referred to Mother's failed drug test and her case plan noncompliance. WCCS's motion also identified the Johnsons as a potential placement for P.B. 

and recommended further assessments. Later, WCCS moved to expand visitation between 

P.B. and the Johnsons with the goal of placing him in their home. 
Warren CA2019-10-108 

 - 3 - 

{¶ 6} On March 19, 2019, the guardian ad litem ("GAL") filed a motion for 

permanent custody of P.B. In response, the Johnsons filed a motion for legal custody of 

P.B. WCCS also moved for P.B. to be placed in the legal custody of the Johnsons. 

Subsequently, the GAL filed a motion that P.B. be placed in the legal custody of the 

Humbles. The Humbles then moved for legal custody of P.B. 

{¶ 7} A final hearing was scheduled for June 12, 2019 but was continued until July 

26, 2019. The hearing was again rescheduled until September 26, 2019, after a putative 

father of P.B. was identified. W.S. ("Father") was confirmed to be P.B.'s father on August 

19, 2019. On September 12, 2019, Father moved to continue the final hearing, alleging 

that his father, appellant, had contacted an attorney and expressed an interest in custody 

of P.B. The juvenile court denied the motion to continue. Then, on September 16, 2019, 

appellant moved to intervene and filed a motion for legal custody of P.B. or, alternatively, 

for visitation rights with P.B. In his motion, appellant informed the court that he resided in 

Florida and was in the process of completing an interstate home study. Appellant requested 

a continuance at the final hearing, which was denied by the juvenile court. 

{¶ 8} At the beginning of the hearing, the juvenile court dismissed the GAL's motion 

for permanent custody. During the hearing, the juvenile court heard testimony from the 

Johnsons, the Humbles, the GAL, and appellant. Since P.B. had spent significant time with 

both the Johnsons and the Humbles, the juvenile court heard testimony concerning P.B.'s 

behavior in each household and the manner in which the parties cared for him. In addition, 

the juvenile court heard statements from the attorneys for Mother and Father expressing 

their wishes that P.B. be placed in the custody of the Johnsons to facilitate the relationship 

of P.B. and his half-sibling. Appellant also testified about his living situation and his desire 

for P.B. to live with him or, alternatively, to establish a visitation schedule with him. 

Following the hearing, the juvenile court issued its decision awarding legal custody of P.B. 
Warren CA2019-10-108 

 - 4 - 

to the Humbles. The juvenile court also granted visitation to the Johnsons, Father, and 

appellant. Appellant, with support of Father, now appeals the juvenile court's decision, 

raising two assignments of error for review. 

{¶ 9} Assignment of Error No. 1: 

{¶ 10} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN AWARDING CUSTODY TO THE HUMBLES 

{¶ 11} In his first assignment of error, appellant argues the juvenile court erred by 

awarding custody of P.B. to the Humbles. We find no merit in appellant's argument. 

{¶ 12} Pursuant to R.C. 2151.353(A)(3), if a child is adjudicated an abused, 

neglected, or dependent child, the juvenile court may award legal custody of the child "to 

either parent or to any other person who, prior to the dispositional hearing, files a motion 

requesting legal custody of the child[.]" Unlike permanent custody, legal custody merely 

vests in the custodian the physical care and control of the child while residual parental rights 

and responsibilities remain intact. In re L.C., 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2019-08-086, 2020-

Ohio-4629, ¶ 13. 

{¶ 13} A child who has been adjudicated dependent may be placed in the legal 

custody of a nonparent "upon a demonstration by a preponderance of the evidence that 

granting legal custody to the nonparent is in the child's best interest." In re C.A., 12th Dist. 

Butler No. CA2014-07-165, 2015-Ohio-1410, ¶ 13. 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, 

including those factors specified therein. In re L.T., 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2016-03-048 

and CA2016-03-058, 2016-Ohio-5272, ¶ 60. These factors include: (1) the wishes of the 

child's parents regarding the child's care; (2) the wishes and concerns of the child, as 

expressed to the juvenile court; (3) the child's interaction and interrelationship with the 

child's parents, siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child's best 

interest; (4) the child's adjustment to the child's home, school, and community; (5) the 
Warren CA2019-10-108 

 - 5 - 

mental and physical health of all persons involved; and (6) the parent more likely to honor 

and facilitate court-approved parenting time rights or visitation and companionship rights. 

R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(a) thru (f). 

{¶ 14} The juvenile court enjoys broad discretion in custody proceedings. In re 

E.L.C., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2014-09-177, 2015-Ohio-2220, ¶ 16. As a result, the 

standard of review in custody decisions is whether the juvenile court abused its discretion. 

C.D. v. D.L., 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2006-09-037, 2007-Ohio-2559, ¶ 14. An abuse of 

discretion implies that the trial court's attitude was unreasonable, arbitrary, or 

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

that a trial court enjoys in custody matters should be accorded the utmost respect, given 

the nature of the proceeding and the impact the court's determination will have on the lives 

of the parties concerned. In re C.A., 2015-Ohio-1410 at ¶ 15. A reviewing court must not 

substitute its judgment for that of the juvenile court when applying the abuse of discretion 

standard. Morrison v. Robinson, 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2012-06-019, 2013-Ohio-453, ¶ 

26. 

{¶ 15} During the final hearing, the juvenile court heard from Mother's counsel that 

she supported the Johnsons' motion for legal custody. Father's counsel indicated that 

Father supported appellant's motion, as he does now on appeal, but also expressed support 

for the Johnsons' motion for legal custody. 

{¶ 16} The wishes and concerns of P.B. were not expressed to the juvenile court due 

to P.B.'s tender age. 

{¶ 17} The juvenile court heard substantial testimony concerning P.B.'s interactions 

and interrelationships with his parents, siblings and the other persons significantly affecting 
Warren CA2019-10-108 

 - 6 - 

his best interests.1 The record reveals that P.B., who was three years old at the time of the 

court's decision, had been in the Humbles' care since September 2017. Julie Humble 

testified that they have three biological children and another child in the process of being 

adopted. Julie testified that P.B. is close with all of her children and that he loves to play 

and interact with them. Additionally, P.B. has contact with the Humbles' extended family 

who treat him as their own. 

{¶ 18} The GAL testified that P.B. interacts with the Humble children in their home 

as if they are siblings. P.B. goes outside to play with them and wants their attention like a 

typical young sibling. The GAL represented that P.B. acts as if the Humbles are his parents. 

P.B. is incorporated into their home life and likes the Humble children to play with him. 

{¶ 19} In contrast to his close bonded relationship with the Humbles, P.B. has only 

met appellant once, the day before the final hearing. 

{¶ 20} As to the fourth factor, the juvenile court also heard substantial evidence of 

P.B.'s adjustment to his home, school, and community. Julie testified that she believed it 

would be in P.B.'s best interest to give him a sense of permanency in their family, as he has 

been fully integrated into their family. The Humbles reside in a four-bedroom home in 

Lebanon and have appropriate resources to provide for P.B. and their four other children. 

Jeremy Humble is a security engineer while Julie is a stay-at-home mother. Julie stated 

that her family has health insurance which would cover P.B. if they were granted legal 

custody. Julie also testified that she has been in charge of all of P.B.'s medical needs since 

September 2017. 

{¶ 21} The Humbles, including P.B., have close relationships with family residing 

locally and participate in activities, such as Sunday School and the YMCA. They are also 

 

1. The juvenile court also heard substantial testimony concerning the Johnsons, but since they are not a party 

to this appeal, we have omitted further discussion in this opinion. 
Warren CA2019-10-108 

 - 7 - 

active in their neighborhood. Julie testified that P.B. has friends in the community who play 

in the pool, the neighborhood playground, and at each other's homes. 

{¶ 22} Julie testified that P.B. is currently enrolled in Head Start and has been for 

approximately one year. She indicated that P.B. was making progress developmentally and 

was looking into preschool for him. 

{¶ 23} The GAL testified that P.B. is funny, talkative, and comfortable in the Humbles' 

home. She further found him to engage with other children in the community and that the 

Humbles have introduced a structured life for him in the community. 

{¶ 24} As to appellant, the record reflects that he lives in Florida and has done so for 

the past 18 years. At the time of the final hearing, appellant testified that he resided in a 

fifth-wheel type camper situated in a storage yard and sitting under a 25 by 25 pole barn 

due to concerns with the trailer's roof. Appellant also testified that he is not employed due 

to a disability but does not receive disability benefits because of ongoing legal issues. 

Appellant stated that he provides for himself by buying and selling things to pay for his utility 

bills. 

{¶ 25} As to the fifth factor, Julie testified that neither she nor her husband have any 

mental or physical disabilities that affect their ability to parent. Appellant testified that he is 

disabled and has herniated discs in his back. 

{¶ 26} As to the sixth factor, appellant stated that he would like visitation with P.B. if 

he were not granted legal custody. Julie stated that she would continue to foster 

relationships with P.B.'s extended family and would follow any court orders that the court 

determined were in P.B.'s best interests. 

{¶ 27} On appeal, appellant argues the juvenile court erred by failing to grant his 

motion to continue the hearing to permit the completion of the interstate home study. 

Because of this, appellant claims that the juvenile court did not adequately consider the 
Warren CA2019-10-108 

 - 8 - 

best interest factors contained in R.C. 3019.04(F), in particular those factors contained in 

R.C. 3019.04(F)(1)(c)-(e) involving P.B.'s interaction and relationships, adjustment to home, 

school, and community, and mental and physical health of all persons. Appellant relies on 

State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (1981), which involved a denial of a motion for continuance 

in a criminal matter where the Supreme Court ultimately concluded that the trial court 

lawfully exercised its discretion in refusing to grant a second continuance. Id. at 68. In so 

doing, the Court noted that a court's right to control its own docket should be balanced by 

the public's interest in the prompt and efficient dispatch of justice and stated: 

In evaluating a motion for a continuance, a court should note, 

inter alia: the length of the delay requested; whether other 

continuances have been requested and received; the 

inconvenience to litigants, witnesses, opposing counsel and the

court; whether the requested delay is for legitimate reasons or

whether it is dilatory, purposeful, or contrived; whether the 

defendant contributed to the circumstance which gives rise to 

the request for a continuance; and other relevant factors, 

depending on the unique facts of each case. 

Id. at 67-68. 

{¶ 28} Following review, we find the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in 

denying appellant's request for a continuance or by granting legal custody of P.B. to the 

Humbles. As noted above, the juvenile court heard substantial evidence as to the relevant 

factors. P.B. is bonded with the Humbles and has been in their custody and care for nearly 

two years. In contrast, appellant was essentially a stranger to P.B., having met him only 

briefly the day prior to the hearing. In the Humbles' care, P.B. lives in a stable family 

residence with ties to the community. Meanwhile, appellant resides in an unfamiliar 

community in a trailer that does not currently include a room for P.B. 

{¶ 29} As it relates to the Unger factors cited by appellant, including the "unique facts 

of each case," we agree that he was not necessarily at fault for his late addition to this case 
Warren CA2019-10-108 

 - 9 - 

once paternity was established.2 However, in this case, P.B. is a three-year-old child who 

has been in custodial purgatory for two years as this case has languished. The juvenile 

court had already granted two six-month extensions of temporary custody and, pursuant to 

R.C. 2151.415(D)(4), no further extensions were permissible. In re N.M.P., 160 Ohio St.3d 

472, 2020-Ohio-1458, ¶ 18. In addition, the final hearing had already been continued on 

two prior occasions and appellant's attempt to alert the court that he was in the process of 

seeking an interstate home study occurred only ten days prior to the final hearing. Appellant 

speculates that the length of delay to complete the home study would be minimal. However, 

the duration of the delay was indeterminate and entirely dependent upon the Florida 

authorities. 

{¶ 30} Furthermore, the interstate home study would address only whether appellant 

was an appropriate custodian and whether his home was an appropriate placement for P.B. 

However, nothing suggests that an approved home study would have been the tipping point 

between awarding legal custody to the Humbles or appellant. An approved home study 

would not outweigh the substantial testimony of P.B.'s interactions, bonds, and community 

ties with the Humbles and the fact that appellant was a virtual stranger to P.B. Considering 

the record before the juvenile court, we find the court did not err by granting custody to the 

Humbles or in denying a continuance of the September 26, 2019 final hearing. As a result, 

we find appellant's first assignment of error is without merit and is hereby overruled. 

{¶ 31} Assignment of Error No. 2: 

 

2. The record reveals that paternity was established on August 19, 2019. However, appellant admitted that 

he suspected that he may be the child's grandfather much earlier. When asked if he knew about P.B. since 

he was born, appellant stated "I assumed possibly when [Mother] was six or eight months pregnant she was 

saying oh I'm pregnant with your child [sic] but [Father] and her being on the outs at the time I wasn't going to 

argue with him about it." Appellant also confirmed that he knew he was related to P.B. when Mother sent him 

a photo of the child, noting that he "didn't need the paternity test" to confirm his beliefs. 
Warren CA2019-10-108 

 - 10 - 

{¶ 32} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GRANTING [APPELLANT] A SPECIFIC 

VISITATION SCHEDULE. 

{¶ 33} In his second assignment of error, appellant argues the juvenile court erred 

by not granting him a specific visitation schedule. Appellant's argument is without merit. 

{¶ 34} The juvenile court ordered the following visitation schedule for appellant: 

Effective September 29, 2019, Father and [appellant] * * * shall 

be able to visit [P.B.] as agreed upon by [appellant] * * * and the 

Humbles * * *. Additionally, reasonable telephone contact shall 

be permitted with [P.B.], as agreed to by * * * the Humbles * * *. 

{¶ 35} Following review, we find the juvenile court did not err by not granting a more 

specific visitation schedule. This court has previously noted that a juvenile court has broad 

discretion in deciding matters regarding visitation rights of grandparents. C.B. v. K.R., 12th 

Dist. Fayette No. CA2019-02-002, 2019-Ohio-3621, ¶ 11. As noted above, the juvenile 

court heard ample evidence concerning P.B.'s relationships with the parties and in his 

upbringing since placement with the Humbles. Despite only meeting P.B. once, the day 

before, the juvenile court granted appellant visitation and telephone contact with P.B. upon 

agreement with the Humbles to facilitate some future relationship. Based upon the 

evidence, the juvenile court did not err in establishing this visitation schedule. Appellant's 

second assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶ 36} Judgment affirmed. 

 S. POWELL and PIPER, JJ., concur.