The Supreme Court of Ohio today ruled that a Summit County mother’s constitutional rights were violated when a juvenile court awarded custody of her daughter to the child’s paternal grandparents without first finding that she was an unsuitable parent.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court reversed a Ninth District Court of Appeals decision granting custody of a girl, identified in court records as “A.S.,” to her grandparents in 2023. The Summit County Juvenile Court’s decision cited, in part, a 2017 declaration that A.S. was a dependent child, and her mother, who at the time struggled with substance use, was an unsuitable parent.

The Court noted the mother, identified as “C.S.,” completed a treatment plan, after which the juvenile court granted custodial rights back to both C.S. and A.S.’s father and closed the case. Returning A.S. to her mother’s custody included a finding that her mother was a suitable parent.

Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy explained that before the juvenile court could grant legal custody to a nonparent, there must be a finding that the natural parent is unsuitable. The juvenile court “inferred” from the 2017 case that C.S. was unsuitable, instead of making a factual determination based on the evidence presented to the juvenile court in 2023.

“Since it did not make that finding before awarding custody to Grandparents, it violated Mother’s fundamental liberty interest in the custody of her child,” Chief Justice Kennedy wrote.

Positive Drug Test Leads to Removal of Children
A.S. was born in 2012. In 2017, Summit County Children Services received a report that C.S. had tested positive for cocaine and methamphetamines while giving birth to a baby boy. Children Services met with the children’s parents and other family members. The agency requested that it be granted emergency temporary custody of C.S.’s three sons, and that A.S. be placed in the emergency temporary custody of her father’s parents, A.S.’s paternal grandparents.

Children Services then requested the juvenile court to declare that, under R.C. 2151.04(B) and (C), A.S. was a dependent child because she lacked adequate parental care. A juvenile court magistrate granted emergency temporary custody to the grandparents.

C.S. entered a treatment facility, and Children Services created a case plan with the goal of reunifying the family. As C.S. participated in the case plan, she and A.S.’s father agreed to grant the grandparents temporary custody of A.S.

A year later, the father agreed to take temporary custody of A.S. while her mother continued the substance-use treatment program. After completing the program, C.S. requested that the juvenile court grant shared parenting to her and the girl’s father. The court approved a shared parenting plan and closed the case in March 2019.

In 2021, A.S.’s father began treatment for a terminal illness. He and C.S. requested a modification of the shared parenting plan. The juvenile court found that the change was in A.S.’s best interest, and that C.S., rather than her father, would be the residential parent for school purposes.

Grandparents Seek Full Custody
In 2023, the grandparents sought legal custody of A.S. from the juvenile court. The grandparents cited their son’s inability to care for A.S. as his illness progressed. They cited C.S.’s history of drug addiction, her recent marriage to a sex offender, and A.S.’s truancy while living with her mother as the reasons for a change in custody.

A.S.’s father died in January 2024, and a hearing on granting legal custody to her grandparents was conducted two months later. Multiple witnesses testified. One issue was the concern about C.S.’s new husband, A.S.’s stepfather. He was a convicted sex offender who had spent time on the sex offender registry for a sexual offense committed against a girl under the age of 13.

A.S. expressed that she wanted to live with her mother if her stepfather were not living with them. She told several people she did not feel safe around him. C.S. testified that she knew her daughter was uncomfortable around her stepfather, and that, in general, she agreed A.S. should be afraid of convicted sex offenders. However, C.S. said she had no concerns about her new husband being around her children.

Juvenile Court Sides With Grandparents
The magistrate hearing the case analyzed the matter under R.C. 2151.42(B). The law allows a juvenile court to modify legal custody only if the court finds a change in circumstances of the child or person granted legal custody, and that the modification is in the best interest of the child.

The magistrate determined there was a change in circumstances, since A.S.’s father died and C.S. married a sex offender. The magistrate found it was in the best interest of A.S. to be in the custody of her grandparents. The magistrate stated the biggest factor was A.S. feeling unsafe around her stepfather.

C.S. objected to the magistrate’s decision and told the juvenile court that the custody decision was made without a finding that she was an unsuitable parent. The juvenile court disagreed. The juvenile judge determined that in 2017, C.S. stipulated that she was an unsuitable parent and that another unsuitability determination was not necessary. The juvenile court agreed with the magistrate and granted custody to the grandparents.

C.S. appealed the decision to the Ninth District. The appeals court upheld the juvenile court’s decision, finding that the process under R.C. 2151.42(B) is all that must be used to grant legal custody. That law makes no mention of suitability, the appeals court stated.

C.S appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Ninth District noted that its decision conflicted with a 2013 decision of the Eighth District Court of Appeals (In re B.K.). The Court agreed to consider C.S.’s appeal and consider the conflict.

Supreme Court Analyzed Custody Laws
In its 2011 In re Mullen decision, the Court stated that, “Parents have a constitutionally protected due process right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children, and the parents’ right to custody of their children is paramount to any custodial interest in the children asserted by nonparents.”

Chief Justice Kennedy explained that “suitable parents” have the right to the custody of their minor children, but the right is not absolute and can be forfeited. Ohio courts have severely limited the circumstances under which the state can deny parents the custody of their children, she noted.

The opinion stated a court cannot award nonparents custody unless the parent is shown to be unsuitable. A parent is “unsuitable” if the parent abandoned the child, the parent contractually relinquished custody, the parent has become totally incapable of supporting or caring for the child, or awarding custody to the parent would be detrimental to the child.

The Court held that “when a nonparent seeks legal custody of a child, the juvenile court must first determine whether the natural parents are unsuitable before it applies the statutory requirements of R.C. 2151.42(B).” However, it clarified that its decision “should not be read to mean that the juvenile court is required to hold two separate hearings.” Instead, courts may determine suitability based on evidence presented at a change-of-circumstances hearing. The factual determination of whether a parent is unsuitable is made on a case-by-case examination.

C.S. had not been deemed an unsuitable parent in a legal custody proceeding, the Court noted. Instead, the juvenile court cited a prior unsuitability determination in a dependency case that had since been closed. Additionally, the court granted C.S. shared legal custody of A.S. after she completed a treatment plan, which meant the juvenile court found her suitable.

“This reinstated her constitutional right to custody of A.S., meaning a court must find her unsuitable before removing her paramount right to the custody of her child,” the opinion stated.

The Court remanded the case to the juvenile court for further proceedings.

2025-1224 and 2025-1225. In re A.S., Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-3906.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.