The Ohio Court of Appeals recently upheld the conviction of Nicole Stargell El Bey for interference with custody, a decision that could have significant implications for parental rights and custody disputes. The ruling, issued on September 18, 2026, comes after Stargell was found guilty of not returning her children to their father, Mengestu Dejene, as mandated by a court order. This case highlights the importance of adhering to legal custody agreements and the consequences of failing to do so.
The case, known as State v. Stargell, was filed under docket number 30489. It centers on the events that unfolded when Stargell failed to return her two children to their father after a scheduled visitation period. The court's decision reinforces the legal framework surrounding custody and visitation rights, making it clear that parents must comply with court orders regarding their children.
Nicole Stargell and Mengestu Dejene have a long history together, having had two children between them, born in 2016 and 2019. In September 2023, the Montgomery County Juvenile Court awarded Dejene legal custody of the children, while Stargell was granted standard visitation rights. This included a specific arrangement for exchanging the children at the West Carrollton Police Department. According to the court order, Stargell was required to return the children by 6:00 p.m. on Sundays, with a grace period extending to 6:30 p.m. for unforeseen circumstances.
The dispute escalated on January 19, 2025, when Stargell did not return the children by the designated time. After multiple attempts to contact her, Dejene reported the children as missing. Police Sergeant Alex Flynn was assigned to the case and attempted to reach Stargell, ultimately leading to her arrest for interference with custody on January 21, 2025. During this encounter, Stargell claimed she had a federal document that superseded the juvenile court's custody order, but the police found the paperwork insufficient.
Stargell represented herself during the trial and sought to introduce body camera footage from Sergeant Flynn, which she argued would support her case. However, the trial court denied the admission of the video due to procedural issues related to its authenticity. Additionally, the court allowed the State to present evidence that Stargell had a previous conviction for falsification, which was relevant to her credibility.
After the bench trial, the court found Stargell guilty of interference with custody, sentencing her to 180 days in jail, with 99 days suspended, and three years of supervised probation. Stargell appealed the conviction, raising two main arguments: the exclusion of the body camera footage and the admission of hearsay evidence against her.
In its ruling, the Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge Robert G. Hanseman, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court noted that the definition of interference with custody under Ohio law includes keeping or harboring a child without privilege. The court explained that Stargell's actions constituted keeping or harboring her children beyond the agreed visitation period, which did not allow her to claim an affirmative defense based on protecting their health or safety.
The court stated, "As a matter of law, Stargell’s failure to return the children upon the conclusion of her court-ordered parenting time constituted keeping or harboring in violation of R.C. 2919.23, not enticing or taking."
The court further emphasized that the evidence supporting Stargell's claims was not relevant since she was not legally justified in keeping the children beyond the court's order. Additionally, the court ruled that even if there were errors in admitting or excluding evidence, they were harmless because the conviction was based on undisputed facts.
This ruling has important implications for parents involved in custody disputes. It reinforces the necessity of adhering to court orders and highlights the legal consequences of failing to comply with custody arrangements. Parents must understand that deviations from court-mandated visitation can lead to serious legal repercussions, including criminal charges.
Moving forward, this case may serve as a precedent in similar custody disputes, clarifying the legal boundaries of parental rights and responsibilities. The decision underscores the importance of the judicial system in resolving custody issues and the need for parents to follow legal protocols when it comes to their children's welfare.
Stargell's legal team may still explore options for appeal, although the appellate court has already affirmed the trial court's ruling. Any further action would need to demonstrate that substantial rights were affected by the trial court's decisions. Currently, there are no related cases pending that could impact this ruling.