Heberling v. Deckard
Citations
- 2024 Ohio 1535
Syllabus
Magistrates Civ.R. 53 Nonparent Custody R.C. 2151.23(A) Evid.R. 702(B) Juv.R. 34(B)(2). The trial court did not commit reversible error when the magistrate presided over the evidentiary hearing, the magistrate did not issue a magistrate's decision, and the magistrate was elected judge of the common pleas court and then issued the judgment. The trial court did not err in concluding defendant-appellant father was unsuitable to be designated as the residential parent and legal custody of his son.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding Board’s reasoning sufficient where its conclusions were “cryptic,” but its path could nonetheless be reasonably discerned
- holding Board’s reasoning sufficient where its conclusions were “cryptic,” but its path could nonetheless be reasonably discerned
- affirming the Board’s “cryptic” conclusions because the Board’s path could be discerned and the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence (quoting Bowman, 419 U.S. at 285-86)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Miller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.