[Cite as In re C.B.,
2025-Ohio-2759.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
IN RE: C.B. C.A. No. 31254
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
CASE No. DN 23-01-000038
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: August 6, 2025
STEVENSON, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Appellant Father appeals the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common
Pleas, Juvenile Division, that imposed restrictions on his visitation with his child. Because those
restrictions are reasonable, this Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} Mother and Father are the biological parents of C.B., born December 8, 2013. The
parents were never married. In 2018, Father filed a complaint in the domestic relations court to
establish a parent-child relationship with C.B. In 2019, that court issued a judgment granting
Father companionship with the child on alternating weeks, effectively placing her with Father half
of the time.
{¶3} In 2021, Summit County Children Services Board (“CSB” or “the agency”)
removed C.B. from Mother’s home and filed a child welfare complaint in the Summit County
Juvenile Court. After the child’s adjudication and initial disposition, the juvenile court adopted
2
the agency’s case plan objectives for both parents. Father refused to participate in any services or
otherwise comply with his objectives, arguing that he was a non-offending party. The juvenile
court ultimately awarded legal custody of C.B. to her maternal grandparents (“Grandparents”).
Neither parent maintained a relationship with the child while she lived with Grandparents.
{¶4} In 2023, CSB removed C.B. from Grandparents’ custody after the child disclosed
that her minor maternal uncle in the home had been sexually abusing her for two years. The agency
filed a complaint alleging that C.B. was an abused, neglected, and dependent child. Grandparents,
Mother, and Father all stipulated at the adjudicatory hearing that the child was abused and
dependent. At that time, Grandparents requested that they be removed as parties from the case
because they did not wish to seek reunification as the child’s legal custodians.
{¶5} After the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court placed C.B. in CSB’s temporary
custody and adopted the agency’s case plan as an order. The case plan required both parents to
obtain mental health assessments and follow recommendations, and to demonstrate the ability to
meet the child’s basic needs. Mother was required to obtain a substance abuse assessment, while
Father was required to submit to drug screens. Only if his drug screens were positive did he need
to submit to a substance abuse assessment.
{¶6} Father objected to the agency’s case plan after it was first filed and again filed
formal objections to the magistrate’s decision adopting the case plan. Father argued that his case
plan objectives were unreasonable because CSB included no allegations regarding him in the
complaint. The agency responded, asserting that Father’s history with CSB, his failure to comply
with his case plan objectives in the 2021 case, and his observed anger management issues all
warranted measures to assess Father’s ability to provide a safe and stable home for the child. The
juvenile court overruled Father’s objections and found that CSB had adequately tailored the case
3
plan objectives to address concerns and foster a plan for C.B.’s reunification with either parent.
Father did not appeal. CSB later amended the case plan to add Mother’s live-in boyfriend who
was the biological father of another of Mother’s children also in CSB’s temporary custody.
{¶7} Eleven months into the case, CSB moved for a first six-month extension of
temporary custody based solely on Mother’s substantial progress on her case plan objectives. The
agency noted that Father continued to refuse all case plan services. After a hearing, the magistrate
granted the six-month extension based on Mother’s case plan compliance, while finding that Father
had not engaged in reunification services and was no longer visiting with the child. In addition,
the magistrate found that C.B. had been “detrimentally impacted by Father once again ceasing
visitation.” Father did not object to the magistrate’s decision.
{¶8} After almost a year of Father’s refusal to participate in case plan services, coupled
with his abandonment of the child, CSB moved for a reasonable efforts bypass determination as
to him. After a hearing, the magistrate granted the agency’s motion and relieved CSB of its
obligation to use reasonable efforts to facilitate reunification of the child with Father. The
magistrate found that Father had made no progress on his case plan objectives and had not visited
with the child in almost six months. Moreover, the magistrate found that the child becomes sad
and withdrawn when discussing Father. While Mother was granted liberal visitation with C.B.,
the juvenile court left Father’s visitation in the discretion of CSB and the guardian ad litem in
consideration of the child’s wishes. Father did not object. The agency restructured the case plan
to move Father’s objectives under the child’s general objectives.
{¶9} CSB moved to modify its order of temporary custody to legal custody to Mother
under the agency’s protective supervision. Near the end of the hearing on the motion, the
magistrate terminated Father’s remote presence after Father continued to disrupt the proceedings.
4
The magistrate found that it was in the child’s best interest to place her in Mother’s legal custody
under CSB’s protective supervision. Around this same time, the juvenile court returned Mother’s
and her boyfriend’s toddler to Mother’s legal custody under protective supervision, as well. The
magistrate maintained Father’s visitation in the discretion of the agency and guardian ad litem in
consideration of both the child’s wishes and her counselor’s recommendations. Father did not
object.
{¶10} Thereafter, CSB moved to terminate its protective supervision and close the
siblings’ cases. The guardian ad litem agreed. At the hearing, Father did not challenge Mother’s
legal custody but merely asked to be heard on the issue of visitation. The magistrate terminated
the agency’s protective supervision, maintained C.B. and her younger sister in Mother’s legal
custody, and ordered the cases closed. The magistrate ordered that Father could visit C.B. in
Mother’s discretion in consideration of the child’s wishes and her counselor’s input and
recommendations under supervised conditions at a commercial visitation center at Father’s
expense. Father filed timely objections.
{¶11} In his objections, Father challenged the lack of restoration of his companionship
rights awarded in 2019 by the domestic relations court. In his evidentiary challenge, he
emphasized that he was a “non-offending parent” and that his case plan objectives were
unreasonable. The juvenile court overruled Father’s objections, citing concerns regarding his
cessation of visits and lack of case plan compliance despite historical and apparent ongoing
concerns regarding his ability to parent the child in a safe and stable environment.
{¶12} In its judgment, the juvenile court reiterated all orders relevant to Father’s
involvement with the child as follows:
5
4. Father may have contact or parenting time at the discretion of Mother, who shall
consider the input and recommendations from [C.B.’s] counselor, as well as
[C.B.’s] wishes.
5. If visitation would occur pursuant to Order #4, Mother shall not be responsible
for supervision of Father’s visitation. The parties may utilize a commercial
visitation center at Father’s expense.
6. Father may have contact with [C.B.’s] counselor to share Father’s concerns and
perspective and to receive updates that the counselor is able to provide about
[C.B.’s] progress.
7. Father may join in counseling with [C.B.] if [C.B.’s] counselor deems it
therapeutically appropriate or refers [C.B.] and Father to another provider for joint
counseling.
{¶13} Father timely appealed. He raises one assignment of error for review.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN THEY LIMITED
FATHER’S VISITATION TO THE DISCRETION OF MOTHER AND ONLY
WHILE SUPERVISED WHEN THAT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF
THE CHILD.
{¶14} Father argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion by placing restrictions on
his visitation with C.B. Specifically, he argues that a definitively structured, court-ordered
visitation schedule is necessary to meet the best interest of the child. This Court disagrees.
{¶15} An award of parental visitation is left to the discretion of the juvenile court. In re
C.P., 2023-Ohio-1350, ¶ 36 (9th Dist.). This Court will not reverse a visitation order unless the
order was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.
Id., citing Blakemore v. Blakemore,
5 Ohio
St.3d 217, 219 (1983). When reviewing a ruling for an abuse of discretion, an appellate court may
not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd.,
66 Ohio St.3d
619, 621 (1993).
6
{¶16} A noncustodial parent retains residual parent rights, responsibilities, and certain
privileges including the “privilege of reasonable visitation[.]” See R.C. 2151.353(A)(3)(c); R.C.
2151.011(B)(50). Nevertheless, the juvenile court may issue orders limiting a parent’s interactions
with a child when necessary to prevent detriment or harm to the child. R.C. 2151.359(A)(1)(a).
This “includes the authority to limit or even prohibit parental visitation with a child placed in the
legal custody or another adult.” In re C.T., 2022-Ohio-3464, ¶ 17 (9th Dist.). “In ordering
visitation, the juvenile court must consider the totality of the circumstances as they relate to the
child’s best interest.” (Internal quotations omitted.) In re K.D.,
2017-Ohio-4161, ¶ 27 (9th Dist.).
{¶17} As an initial matter, this Court notes that the juvenile court did not expressly limit
Father to supervised visits. The trial court left the parameters of Father’s visitation in Mother’s
discretion in consideration of the child’s wishes and her counselor’s input and recommendations.
The juvenile court acknowledged the strained relationship between the parents and simply relieved
Mother of any obligation to personally supervise Father’s visits, if she found such visits
appropriate. If Mother, in consideration of the child’s and counselor’s input, were to agree to visits
between Father and C.B. and yet determine that those visits should be supervised, the trial court
merely ordered that the parents “may” use a commercial visitation center. Accordingly, Mother
retains the discretion to approve other third parties to supervise Father’s visits or to dispel with the
need for supervision at all. See In re B.D., 2022-Ohio-1832, ¶ 46 (9th Dist.). Therefore, Father’s
argument that he is restricted to supervised visits with the child is not well taken.
{¶18} Moreover, the juvenile court did not grant Mother unfettered discretion to allow or
disallow visits between Father and the child. Instead, Mother must consider both the child’s wishes
and the counselor’s recommendations when determining whether to permit contact between Father
and C.B. In addition, the juvenile court authorized Father’s contact with the child’s counselor so
7
that he might share his thoughts and concerns, understand the child’s therapeutic needs, and learn
how best to pursue a healthy relationship with C.B. Accordingly, unlike the situation in In re K.D.
at ¶ 28 (9th Dist.), where a father was granted sole discretion over a mother’s visitation when the
parents had experienced long term hostility with no likely expectation of détente, the evidence in
this case demonstrated that the caseworker and guardian ad litem believed that Mother would not
unreasonably deny Father contact with the child. In fact, the guardian ad litem testified that she
believed that Mother would reach out to Father if the child indicated she wanted to see him. In
addressing the parents’ relationship, the guardian ad litem emphasized that it was Father who
showed animosity towards Mother and her boyfriend, and that she had witnessed Father speaking
negatively about Mother to the child. On the other hand, the guardian ad litem did not report that
Mother had demonstrated ill will towards Father. Significantly, Father did not testify that he had
concerns that Mother would interfere with his ability to develop a relationship with C.B.
{¶19} Furthermore, this Court cannot conclude that the juvenile court was unreasonable
when it left Father’s contact with C.B. in Mother’s discretion, rather than establishing a set
visitation schedule for him in this case. The evidence demonstrated that the child has endured
repeated and significant traumas during her life. She experienced disruptions from multiple
homes, sexual abuse by a relative, the stress of preparing for a delinquency proceeding involving
the perpetrator, bullying and rejection by family members who refused to believe her claims of
abuse, the death of a sibling, and Father’s repeated unexplained absences from her life. C.B. was
working with a counselor to address these traumatic events and required consistency and
prioritization by her caregivers.
{¶20} Both the caseworker and guardian ad litem testified regarding Father’s behaviors
and attitudes that raised concerns regarding his ability to engage in a healthy relationship with the
8
child. Notwithstanding case plan objectives designed to alleviate such concerns, Father adamantly
refused to engage in services or otherwise cooperate to demonstrate that he and the child could
enjoy appropriate interactions. When confronted about behaviors like falling asleep during visits
and not confirming his intent to appear, Father became belligerent and stopped coming to visits.
Father demonstrated no commitment to putting the needs of the child first in her best interest.
Instead, he stubbornly clung to the mantra that he was a non-offending parent who should not have
to demonstrate the ability to provide a safe and appropriate environment for the child.
{¶21} Father admitted that he has used methamphetamine in the past but refused to discuss
his mental health history. He emphasized that any issues he might have had that could impact his
parenting ability were addressed in the 2018 domestic relations case and no longer relevant. Father
testified that C.B. “begged for” (p.50) alternating weekly visits, and he refused to believe that the
child was no longer comfortable spending time with him. Both the caseworker and guardian ad
litem testified, however, that C.B. is adamant that she does not want to visit with Father at this
time. They explained that the child is angry and resentful because Father had not attended any
visits during the past nine months.
{¶22} The guardian ad litem reported that C.B. is not emotionally ready to resume
visitation with Father because she continues to struggle with his abandonment of her during both
the 2021 and current juvenile court cases. Based on her discussions with the child and her
counselor, the guardian ad litem opined that forcing C.B. to visit with Father at this time would
cause additional trauma and she recommended delaying Father-Child contact until both the child
and her counselor agreed C.B. was equipped to cope with her feelings of anger and abandonment.
{¶23} Given Father’s lack of cooperation during the case, no evidence of his current
ability to interact appropriately with the child, C.B.’s ongoing need to address the multiple traumas
9
she has experienced, her insistent refusal to resume contact with Father, and the recommendation
of the guardian ad litem, the juvenile court’s decision not to establish a set visitation schedule for
Father was not unreasonable. Father has permission to seek information regarding the child’s
progress in counseling and make his perspective and desires known, so that C.B.’s counselor can
work with the child towards re-establishing contact with Father, when appropriate. Under these
circumstances, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by leaving the parameters of Father’s
visitation indefinite and in consideration of the active involvement of Mother, the wishes of the
child, and the input of the child’s counselor. Father’s assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶24} Father’s sole assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Summit County
Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period
for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to
mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the
docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
10
Costs taxed to Appellant.
SCOT STEVENSON
FOR THE COURT
SUTTON, J.
CONCURS.
CARR, J.
CONCURRING IN PART, AND DISSENTING IN PART.
{¶25} I concur with the majority opinion except in relation to its determination that
supervised visitation was not required by the trial court’s order.
{¶26} While the trial court’s order number 4 leaves Father’s “contact or parenting time at
the discretion of Mother,” without mentioning supervision, Father challenged the supervision
requirement in his objections. The juvenile court thereafter in its analysis wrote that it “cannot
find that it is in [C.B.’s] best interest to have unsupervised visitation with Father at this time.” The
trial court clearly meant for visitation to be supervised.
{¶27} Although Father challenged the requirement that his visits be supervised in the text
of his assignment of error, he did not subsequently develop that argument in his brief.
Accordingly, he has not demonstrated error as to the requirement for supervision.
{¶28} I respectfully dissent from the majority on this issue alone and would hold that any
visitation by Father must be supervised.
11
APPEARANCES:
JASON D. WALLACE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
ELLIOT KOLKOVICH, Prosecuting Attorney, and C. RICHLEY RALEY, JR., Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
EMILY M. HETE, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.
