Ohio's 12th District Court of Appeals ruled in In re S.B. (2026-Ohio-947) on March 20, 2026, that a parent's refusal to affirm a child's transgender identity cannot serve as evidence of parental unfitness under Ohio law. The decision, authored by Judge Matthew R. Byrne, directly addresses a growing flashpoint in family courts nationwide and establishes binding precedent for Ohio's 12th Appellate District.
| Key Facts | Details |
|---|---|
| What happened | Ohio appellate court ruled gender identity rejection is not evidence of parental unfitness |
| Case | In re S.B., 2026-Ohio-947 (Case No. CA2025-10-040) |
| Court | 12th District Court of Appeals, Clinton County |
| Date | March 20, 2026 |
| Key statutes | Ohio R.C. § 2151.414, Ohio R.C. § 3109.04 |
| Outcome | Permanent custody affirmed on other grounds (drug use, domestic violence) |
This Ruling Draws a Clear Line Between Parental Beliefs and Parental Fitness
The 12th District's decision in In re S.B. establishes that Ohio courts cannot treat a parent's position on their child's gender identity as a factor in determining fitness. Judge Byrne wrote that "there is no requirement in Ohio law that parents must unquestioningly accept and support their minor children's claims of transsexual identity or preferred pronouns," according to the 36-page opinion reported by Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.
The case involved a child, pseudonymized as "Sara," born in 2010 whose parents divorced in 2015. Clinton County Children Services filed for emergency custody on March 17, 2023, citing homelessness and domestic violence exposure. During the proceedings, additional concerns surfaced regarding the mother's drug use, educational neglect, and mental health issues affecting both parents and the child.
During the pendency of the case, Sara "repeatedly changed the pronouns that she prefers," with parental testimony indicating the child "changes her sexuality every four to five weeks." The state's brief suggested the parents' reluctance to affirm Sara's gender identity claims was itself evidence of unfitness. The appellate court rejected this reasoning outright, while still affirming permanent custody to the county on the independent grounds of substance abuse and domestic violence.
The court drew an analogy to religious upbringing, noting that parents retain the right to guide their children's development in matters of faith, and that a similar principle applies to gender identity questions. Judge Byrne acknowledged the issue "remains hotly-contested socially, politically, and legally" but found no statutory basis for treating non-affirmation as a fitness factor. Judges Robert A. Hendrickson and Robin N. Piper concurred in the opinion.
Ohio's Custody and Fitness Statutes Do Not Include Gender Affirmation as a Factor
Ohio law provides two primary statutory frameworks relevant to this ruling. Ohio R.C. § 3109.04 governs custody determinations and lists 10 specific "best interest of the child" factors under subsection (F)(1), including the wishes of each parent, the child's adjustment to home and school, the mental and physical health of all parties, and each parent's criminal history. Gender identity affirmation does not appear among these 10 factors.
Ohio R.C. § 2151.414 governs permanent custody proceedings brought by children services agencies. Section (E) lists 16 factors courts may consider when determining whether a child cannot be placed with a parent, including chronic substance dependency, failure to remedy conditions causing removal, and lack of commitment demonstrated by failing to support or visit the child. Again, no factor references gender identity.
The appellate court's analysis rested on this straightforward statutory interpretation: because the Ohio General Assembly did not include gender affirmation among the enumerated fitness factors, courts cannot import it as an independent basis for finding unfitness. The court affirmed permanent custody under Ohio R.C. § 2151.414(E)(1) and (E)(2), finding the parents failed to remedy the drug use and domestic violence that led to the child's removal.
This ruling arrives alongside Ohio House Bill 693, the "Affirming Families First Act," introduced in February 2026 by Rep. Gary Click and Rep. Josh Williams with 13 GOP co-sponsors. HB 693 would codify protections for parents who decline to affirm a child's gender identity, shielding them from abuse and neglect investigations on that basis alone. The bill received its second committee hearing on March 27, 2026. The court in In re S.B. reached a similar conclusion through case law that the legislature is attempting to reach through statute.
Practical Takeaways for Ohio Parents in Custody Disputes
-
A parent's position on gender identity, standing alone, cannot be used as grounds for an unfitness finding in Ohio's 12th Appellate District. Other appellate districts have not yet addressed the question, but this opinion carries persuasive authority statewide.
-
The ruling does not give parents blanket immunity from scrutiny. The court still affirmed the loss of custody based on drug use, domestic violence, educational neglect, and failure to comply with case plan requirements. Parents must address all legitimate concerns raised by children services agencies regardless of how the gender identity question is resolved.
-
Ohio parents facing custody disputes where gender identity is raised should document their overall parenting fitness carefully. The court weighed the totality of the parents' conduct, finding unfitness under multiple Ohio R.C. § 2151.414(E) factors independent of the gender issue.
-
Watch Ohio HB 693. If enacted, the Affirming Families First Act would provide statutory protection beyond the 12th District's appellate ruling. Until then, parents in other Ohio appellate districts should be aware that this issue has not been addressed uniformly across the state's 12 appellate districts.
-
If children services or a guardian ad litem raises gender identity affirmation as a concern in your case, bring this opinion to your attorney's attention immediately. In re S.B. (2026-Ohio-947) provides direct appellate authority that non-affirmation alone is insufficient to support a fitness determination.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can an Ohio court take away custody because a parent refuses to use a child's preferred pronouns?
No, based on the 12th District's ruling in In re S.B. (2026-Ohio-947). The court held on March 20, 2026, that Ohio law does not require parents to affirm a child's gender identity, and refusal to do so cannot independently establish parental unfitness under Ohio R.C. § 2151.414. Other appellate districts have not yet ruled on the issue.
Does In re S.B. apply to all Ohio custody cases or only permanent custody proceedings?
The ruling directly addresses permanent custody under Ohio R.C. § 2151.414, but the court's reasoning extends to the best interest analysis under Ohio R.C. § 3109.04 as well. Neither statute lists gender identity affirmation as a factor. The 12th District's logic that courts cannot import factors the legislature did not include applies to both statutory frameworks.
What happened to the parents in the In re S.B. case?
The parents lost permanent custody of their child, but not because of the gender identity issue. The 12th District affirmed the juvenile court's decision based on the mother's drug use, exposure to domestic violence, educational neglect, and failure to comply with their case plan under Ohio R.C. § 2151.414(E)(1) and (E)(2). The gender identity analysis was a separate legal question the court addressed independently.
Is Ohio considering legislation on this issue beyond the court ruling?
Yes. Ohio House Bill 693, the Affirming Families First Act, was introduced in February 2026 with 15 Republican co-sponsors. The bill would codify protections for parents who decline to affirm a child's gender identity, blocking abuse and neglect investigations on that basis alone. HB 693 received its second committee hearing on March 27, 2026, and remains pending in the Judiciary Committee.
How does Ohio's approach compare to other states?
Ohio's 12th District took the opposite position from states like Colorado, where Senate Bill 26-018 (introduced in 2026) would require courts to consider whether parents "recognize" a child's gender identity as a factor in custody decisions. The national landscape is divided, with no federal standard governing how family courts should weigh gender identity in custody or fitness determinations.
If you have questions about how this ruling may affect a custody matter in Ohio, find a family law attorney in your county who can evaluate your specific circumstances.
This article discusses recent news and provides general legal commentary. It does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique. Consult a qualified family law attorney for advice specific to your situation.