In re A.C.
2014 Ohio 4918
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Mother Ashley J. is mother to A.C. (b. 2006) and D.M. (b. 2009); father Douglas C. and father Dewayne M. are paternal; another child I.M. was born in 2013 not at issue.
- Children previously removed in a 2008 dependency proceeding due to concerns of drug use, mental health, and neglect; A.C. placed with father until his incarceration in 2011; mother regained custody.
- In 2012 a welfare check revealed unprescribed Percocet in Mother's possession; Mother arrested and later convicted of aggravated possession of drugs; children taken into custody under Juvenile Rule 6 but returned on voluntary case plan.
- CSB filed a dependency action in 2012 due to ongoing drug use, unsupervised care, and neglect concerns; initial disposition allowed protective supervision with Mother.
- By 2013-2014, Mother showed some progress (sobriety, treatment, and housing efforts), but ongoing drug use and housing instability persisted; in 2013 CSB withdrew permanent custody motion but later sought permanent custody in November 2013 after deterioration in conditions.
- Guardian ad Litem and attorney for the children evaluated the wishes and best interests; ultimately the trial court granted CSB permanent custody despite fluctuating progress.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wishes of the children considered in best interests | Mother argues lack of direct evidence of children’s wishes. | CSB/Guardian argued wishes were known and considered. | Court adequately considered children's wishes via attorney and GAL; no prejudice shown. |
| Whether substantial compliance with case plans negates termination | Mother contends substantial compliance supports reversal. | CSB argues substantial compliance alone not dispositive; failure to remedy conditions persists. | Substantial compliance does not control; evidence shows failure to remedy conditions and best interests favor permanent custody. |
| Admissibility/weight of Guardian Ad Litem reports | Mother challenges weight of GAL report due to GAL not fully eliciting wishes. | Report was weighed with independent counsel and other evidence. | GAL report admissible; independent counsel represented children's wishes; court appropriately weighed evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.M., 2010-Ohio-2278 (9th Dist. Lorain Nos. 10CA009744, 10CA009745, 10CA009746, 10CA009747) (substantial compliance not alone dispositive in permanent custody decisions)
- In re C.B., 2011-Ohio-2899 (Ohio Sup. Ct.) (guardian ad litem role; weigh wishes with best interests)
- In re Williams, 2004-Ohio-1500 (Ohio Sup. Ct.) (independent counsel for child when GAL conflict with child’s wishes)
- In re Schaefer, 2006-Ohio-5513 (Ohio Sup. Ct.) (weighs multiple best-interest factors; no single factor controlling)
- In re C.G., 2008-Ohio-3773 (9th Dist. Summit) (consideration of wishes among best-interest factors)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (establishes clear and convincing standard)