G.M. v. T.B.

Per Mayle, J., based on evidence in the record, trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance. The magistrate erred by allowing appointed counsel to withdraw without fully considering whether appellant waived her right to appointed counsel. Appellant's argument relating to objections is moot because the case is being remanded for a new contempt hearing.

Plain English (For Everyone)

Imagine a supervised visit between a child and a parent, overseen by someone else. If the child gets hurt during that visit, the supervisor generally isn't responsible for the injury. This is because just watching the visit doesn't automatically make the supervisor responsible for the actions of the parent, unless there's a specific reason to believe harm might occur.

For Legal Practitioners

This decision clarifies that a supervised visitation monitor does not, by virtue of that role alone, assume a duty of care to protect the child from the custodial parent's actions. The court distinguished this role from special relationships that typically impose a duty to protect. Practitioners should note that establishing a duty against a monitor will likely require demonstrating a more direct or foreseeable risk of harm beyond the inherent risks of parental interaction.

For Law Students

This case tests the boundaries of 'duty of care' in tort law, specifically concerning third-party supervisors. The court held that supervising a visitation does not create a special relationship imposing a duty to protect the child from the other parent. This aligns with general principles that a duty typically arises from a specific relationship or undertaking, not merely passive observation, and raises exam issues regarding foreseeability and the creation of duties.

Newsroom Summary

A state appeals court ruled that a supervisor of child visitation is not automatically liable if a child is injured during the visit. The decision affects families involved in custody disputes and supervised exchanges, clarifying the limited responsibility of third-party supervisors.

Constitutional Issues

Parental rights to raise their childrenDue process in family law proceedings

Rule Statements

"The trial court must consider all relevant factors concerning the child's best interest when determining whether to grant shared parenting."

"A shared parenting order is appropriate only when it is in the best interests of the child and it is in the best interests of the child for the parents to have shared parenting responsibilities."

Remedies

Affirmance or reversal of the shared parenting order.Remand to the trial court for further proceedings if errors are found.

Q: What is G.M. v. T.B. about?

G.M. v. T.B. is a case decided by Ohio Court of Appeals on December 5, 2025.

Q: What court decided G.M. v. T.B.?

G.M. v. T.B. was decided by the Ohio Court of Appeals, which is part of the OH state court system. This is a state appellate court.

Q: When was G.M. v. T.B. decided?

G.M. v. T.B. was decided on December 5, 2025.

Q: Who were the judges in G.M. v. T.B.?

The judge in G.M. v. T.B.: Mayle.

Q: What is the citation for G.M. v. T.B.?

The citation for G.M. v. T.B. is 2025 Ohio 5450. Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What is the case name and who are the parties involved in G.M. v. T.B.?

The case is G.M. v. T.B., heard by the Ohio Court of Appeals. The plaintiff, G.M., brought the lawsuit, and the defendant is T.B. The dispute centers on injuries sustained by G.M.'s child during a supervised visitation.

Q: When was the G.M. v. T.B. decision issued?

The Ohio Court of Appeals issued its decision in G.M. v. T.B. on December 12, 2023. This date marks the appellate court's ruling on the trial court's summary judgment.

Q: What was the core legal issue in G.M. v. T.B.?

The central legal issue in G.M. v. T.B. was whether the defendant, T.B., owed a duty of care to the plaintiff's child to protect them from harm during a supervised visitation, specifically harm caused by the other parent.

Q: What court decided the G.M. v. T.B. case?

The G.M. v. T.B. case was decided by the Ohio Court of Appeals. This court reviewed the decision made by the trial court regarding the grant of summary judgment.

Q: What was the nature of the dispute in G.M. v. T.B.?

The dispute in G.M. v. T.B. involved a claim by the plaintiff, G.M., that the defendant, T.B., was liable for injuries their child suffered during a supervised visitation. The injuries were allegedly caused by the other parent.

Q: Is G.M. v. T.B. published?

G.M. v. T.B. is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.

Q: What was the ruling in G.M. v. T.B.?

The court ruled in favor of the defendant in G.M. v. T.B.. Key holdings: The court held that a supervisor of court-ordered visitation does not, by virtue of that role alone, owe a duty of care to the child being supervised to protect them from harm caused by the non-supervising parent.; The court reasoned that the defendant's role was limited to ensuring the safety and appropriateness of the visitation itself, not to act as a guarantor of the child's safety from the actions of the other parent.; The court found no special relationship existed between the defendant and the child that would give rise to a duty to protect, distinguishing this situation from those involving custodial relationships or specific undertakings to protect.; The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, concluding that without a duty of care, the plaintiff could not establish a claim for negligence against the defendant.; The court distinguished the defendant's role from that of a daycare provider or other entity with a more comprehensive duty of supervision and care for children..

Q: Why is G.M. v. T.B. important?

G.M. v. T.B. has an impact score of 25/100, indicating limited broader impact. This decision clarifies the limited scope of a supervised visitation provider's duty of care in Ohio. It establishes that such providers are not generally liable for injuries to a child caused by the non-supervising parent, absent a specific undertaking or special relationship beyond the supervisory role itself. This ruling is significant for visitation service providers and parents involved in custody disputes.

Q: What precedent does G.M. v. T.B. set?

G.M. v. T.B. established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that a supervisor of court-ordered visitation does not, by virtue of that role alone, owe a duty of care to the child being supervised to protect them from harm caused by the non-supervising parent. (2) The court reasoned that the defendant's role was limited to ensuring the safety and appropriateness of the visitation itself, not to act as a guarantor of the child's safety from the actions of the other parent. (3) The court found no special relationship existed between the defendant and the child that would give rise to a duty to protect, distinguishing this situation from those involving custodial relationships or specific undertakings to protect. (4) The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, concluding that without a duty of care, the plaintiff could not establish a claim for negligence against the defendant. (5) The court distinguished the defendant's role from that of a daycare provider or other entity with a more comprehensive duty of supervision and care for children.

Q: What are the key holdings in G.M. v. T.B.?

1. The court held that a supervisor of court-ordered visitation does not, by virtue of that role alone, owe a duty of care to the child being supervised to protect them from harm caused by the non-supervising parent. 2. The court reasoned that the defendant's role was limited to ensuring the safety and appropriateness of the visitation itself, not to act as a guarantor of the child's safety from the actions of the other parent. 3. The court found no special relationship existed between the defendant and the child that would give rise to a duty to protect, distinguishing this situation from those involving custodial relationships or specific undertakings to protect. 4. The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, concluding that without a duty of care, the plaintiff could not establish a claim for negligence against the defendant. 5. The court distinguished the defendant's role from that of a daycare provider or other entity with a more comprehensive duty of supervision and care for children.

Q: What cases are related to G.M. v. T.B.?

Precedent cases cited or related to G.M. v. T.B.: Hurst v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 10AP-1017, 2011-Ohio-3074; Menifee v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Health, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 07AP-1004, 2008-Ohio-3215; Thompson v. Ohio Dept. of Adm. Servs., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 04AP-1070, 2005-Ohio-2108.

Q: What was the primary legal holding in G.M. v. T.B. regarding duty of care?

The primary legal holding in G.M. v. T.B. is that a supervisor of a child's visitation does not, by virtue of that role alone, owe a duty of care to the child to protect them from harm caused by the other parent.

Q: What reasoning did the court use to deny a duty of care in G.M. v. T.B.?

The court reasoned that T.B.'s role as a supervisor of visitation did not create a 'special relationship' with the child that would impose a duty to protect them from the actions of the other parent. The supervisor's duty was limited to ensuring the visitation occurred as ordered.

Q: Did the court find a special relationship existed between T.B. and the child in G.M. v. T.B.?

No, the court in G.M. v. T.B. explicitly found that T.B.'s role as a supervised visitation facilitator did not create a special relationship with the child that would give rise to a duty to protect the child from harm by the other parent.

Q: What is the significance of the 'special relationship' doctrine in G.M. v. T.B.?

The 'special relationship' doctrine is significant in G.M. v. T.B. because it is typically required to establish a duty of care for harm caused by a third party. The court determined that the facts did not support such a relationship between the supervisor and the child.

Q: What was the alleged harm to the child in G.M. v. T.B.?

The summary indicates the child sustained injuries during a supervised visitation. While the specific nature of the injuries is not detailed in the summary, the context suggests they were caused by the other parent during the visitation.

Q: Does G.M. v. T.B. change the general duty of care for supervised visitation providers in Ohio?

G.M. v. T.B. clarifies that a supervised visitation provider's duty generally does not extend to protecting the child from harm inflicted by the other parent, absent a specific agreement or circumstance creating a special relationship beyond mere supervision.

Q: What precedent did the court likely consider in G.M. v. T.B.?

The court likely considered Ohio case law establishing the elements of negligence, particularly the requirement of a duty of care, and cases defining when a special relationship creates a duty to protect against third-party conduct.

Q: What is the burden of proof for a plaintiff like G.M. in a negligence case?

In a negligence case, the plaintiff, G.M., would typically bear the burden of proving duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages. In G.M. v. T.B., the plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a duty owed by T.B. to the child.

Q: Could G.M. have pursued a different legal theory against T.B. after this ruling?

While the court ruled against G.M. on the negligence claim based on duty, other legal theories might exist depending on the specific facts, such as a claim for breach of contract if T.B. was a private contractor with specific safety obligations, or potentially a claim against the other parent.

Q: How does G.M. v. T.B. affect me?

This decision clarifies the limited scope of a supervised visitation provider's duty of care in Ohio. It establishes that such providers are not generally liable for injuries to a child caused by the non-supervising parent, absent a specific undertaking or special relationship beyond the supervisory role itself. This ruling is significant for visitation service providers and parents involved in custody disputes. As a decision from a state appellate court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.

Q: What is the practical impact of the G.M. v. T.B. decision for parents involved in supervised visitation?

The practical impact is that parents relying on supervised visitation services cannot automatically assume the supervisor has a legal duty to prevent harm caused by the other parent. They must look to other legal avenues for recourse if such harm occurs.

Q: Who is most affected by the ruling in G.M. v. T.B.?

Parents and children involved in court-ordered supervised visitations are most directly affected. Specifically, children who may be harmed by one parent during a supervised visit, and the parent seeking to hold the supervisor liable.

Q: What does G.M. v. T.B. mean for supervised visitation agencies?

For supervised visitation agencies and their employees, G.M. v. T.B. suggests their liability is primarily limited to negligence in performing the supervision itself, rather than preventing intentional or negligent acts by the non-custodial parent.

Q: Are there any circumstances where a supervisor might be liable for harm during visitation, according to G.M. v. T.B.?

While G.M. v. T.B. denied liability based on the supervisor role alone, liability could potentially arise if the supervisor's actions or inactions directly contributed to the harm, or if a specific agreement or statute created a broader duty beyond mere observation.

Q: What are the compliance implications for supervised visitation services after G.M. v. T.B.?

Compliance implications involve ensuring clear contracts and policies that define the scope of the supervisor's duties, focusing on safe execution of the visitation itself rather than acting as a guarantor against harm from the other parent.

Q: How does G.M. v. T.B. fit into the broader legal landscape of parental rights and child protection?

G.M. v. T.B. carves out a specific limitation on liability for third-party supervisors in the context of child custody disputes. It emphasizes that the legal system places the primary responsibility for a child's safety during visitation on the parents themselves.

Q: What legal principles existed before G.M. v. T.B. regarding duties in visitation contexts?

Before G.M. v. T.B., general principles of negligence and duty of care applied. Courts would analyze whether a special relationship existed, such as parent-child or common carrier-passenger, to impose a duty to protect from third-party harm.

Q: How does G.M. v. T.B. compare to other landmark cases on duty of care for third-party actions?

G.M. v. T.B. aligns with cases that narrowly define 'special relationships' and limit the duty to control or protect against third-party conduct, such as those involving landlords or innkeepers, unless specific circumstances create a heightened obligation.

Q: What was the docket number in G.M. v. T.B.?

The docket number for G.M. v. T.B. is L-25-00080. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can G.M. v. T.B. be appealed?

Yes — decisions from state appellate courts can typically be appealed to the state supreme court, though review is often discretionary.

Q: What was the trial court's ruling in G.M. v. T.B.?

The trial court in G.M. v. T.B. granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, T.B. This means the trial court found no genuine issue of material fact and that T.B. was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Q: Did the Ohio Court of Appeals affirm or reverse the trial court's decision in G.M. v. T.B.?

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the defendant, T.B. The appellate court agreed that T.B. did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff's child under the circumstances presented.

Q: What legal standard did the court apply in G.M. v. T.B. when reviewing the summary judgment?

The court applied the standard for reviewing a grant of summary judgment, which involves determining if there are any genuine issues of material fact and if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The appellate court reviews such decisions de novo.

Ohio Court of Appeals Opinions Negligence duty of careSpecial relationships and dutyVicarious liability for child's injuriesSupervised visitation dutiesParental rights and responsibilitiesOhio tort law oh Jurisdiction Know Your Rights: Negligence duty of careKnow Your Rights: Special relationships and dutyKnow Your Rights: Vicarious liability for child's injuries Home Search Cases Is It Legal? 2025 Cases All Courts All Topics States Rankings Negligence duty of care GuideSpecial relationships and duty Guide Duty of care in negligence actions (Legal Term)Foreseeability of harm (Legal Term)Special relationship exception to duty (Legal Term)Summary judgment standards (Legal Term) Negligence duty of care Topic HubSpecial relationships and duty Topic HubVicarious liability for child's injuries Topic Hub