The Ohio Court of Appeals recently upheld a lower court's decision to award legal custody of a minor child to the father, Jason Leschinski, amid serious allegations against the mother’s husband. The court ruled that the well-being of the child was at risk due to the mother's relationship with a man previously charged with rape.
This ruling affects the family of L.L., a minor born on November 2, 2017. The decision emphasizes the court's commitment to ensuring child safety in custody disputes, particularly when allegations of abuse are present.
The case, Leschinski v. Rizer, was filed under docket number 2026 CA 00001. It reached the Ohio Court of Appeals after Jacklyn Rizer, who now goes by Jacklyn Smith, appealed a judgment from the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas. The lower court had granted custody to Leschinski following a series of troubling events surrounding the mother’s husband.
Initially, Leschinski and Rizer had an informal parenting arrangement without any court orders. However, in July 2023, Leschinski learned that Rizer’s live-in boyfriend and now husband, David Smith, had been charged with the rape of a juvenile. This alarming information prompted Leschinski to file for emergency temporary custody on August 17, 2023.
The trial court granted Leschinski’s request for temporary custody and allowed Rizer supervised parenting time. An agreed temporary custody order was established in December 2023, which continued until the full custody trial occurred nearly two years later, on November 18, 2025.
During the trial, the court heard testimonies from both parents, law enforcement, and a guardian ad litem. Evidence revealed that Rizer had married Smith despite knowing about the rape allegations against him. Rizer maintained that she believed Smith was innocent and did not express concern for L.L.'s safety around him.
Testimony from the alleged victim of Smith’s past abuse, K.R., detailed the sexual abuse she suffered at Smith’s hands, raising significant concerns about his character. Law enforcement corroborated K.R.'s testimony, noting that Smith had been charged with multiple counts of rape and sexual battery.
After reviewing the evidence, the trial court determined that granting full custody to Leschinski was in L.L.'s best interest. The court ruled that Rizer’s decision to keep Smith in the household posed a potential risk to the child. The court stated, "The trial court properly executed its statutory duty and discussed the facts regarding each of these factors," referring to the safety and welfare of L.L.
Rizer appealed the decision, presenting several assignments of error, arguing that the trial court had overstepped its authority by considering allegations against Smith, who was not a party to the custody case. However, the appellate court found that Rizer lacked standing to make these arguments on behalf of Smith.
The court emphasized that the trial court had a duty to consider all relevant factors affecting the child's welfare, including the relationship between L.L. and Smith. The appellate judges, Montgomery, Hoffman, and Baldwin, concurred that the trial court's findings were supported by credible evidence and did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
This ruling reinforces the importance of evaluating the safety of children in custody disputes. The court's decision to prioritize L.L.'s welfare over the mother's objections highlights a growing trend in family law to address potential risks posed by household members.
Looking ahead, this ruling sets a precedent for future custody cases involving allegations of abuse. It underscores the courts' willingness to scrutinize the living conditions of children and the individuals with whom they reside.
Rizer may still seek to appeal the decision to the Ohio Supreme Court, although details about any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. The case raises critical questions about parental rights and the responsibilities of courts to protect children from potential harm.
As the legal landscape continues to evolve, this case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in custody disputes, especially when serious allegations of abuse are present.