2018 Ohio 386
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- CCDCFS filed dependency and permanent-custody actions concerning four children (three older siblings previously removed in 2011 and a newborn in 2014). Cases were consolidated for a new permanent custody trial in October 2016.
- Mother has longstanding instability: intermittent housing, inconsistent attendance at services/visits, functional illiteracy, very low intellectual functioning, and limited insight into reasons for prior removals. Psychological evaluator and counselor testified Mother showed limited and inconsistent progress.
- Children have lived primarily with a foster family (except a 14-month relative placement); foster family reports improved health and behavior; children displayed negative reactions to visitation with Mother. Foster parents seek to adopt.
- Maternal grandmother sought legal custody of the three older children but had a history of neglecting her own children, unstable housing, and did not seek custody of the newborn; the agency and GAL had concerns about her suitability.
- Juvenile court granted permanent custody to CCDCFS. This court ordered a limited remand to ensure inquiry into Native American ancestry (ICWA/25 U.S.C. §1912); the trial court held a hearing and found no Native American ancestry. Mother appealed, arguing the permanent custody decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | Agency's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether children could be placed with Mother within a reasonable time (R.C. 2151.414(E)) | Mother argued she made progress and could remedy conditions with more/earlier services | Agency argued Mother failed to remedy conditions despite reasonable case planning; chronic intellectual/mental-health limitations, unstable housing, inconsistent service attendance | Court: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supported findings under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1),(2),(4) (and (11) as to fathers) that children could not be placed with Mother within a reasonable time |
| Whether permanent custody is in children’s best interests (R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)) | Mother argued relatives (maternal grandmother) could care for the older three and court erred by not giving sufficient weight to children’s wishes | Agency and GAL emphasized children’s bond with foster family, stability, and children’s negative reactions to visits with Mother; grandmother unsuitable or unstable | Court: Affirmed — considering interaction, wishes (via GAL), custodial history, and need for legally secure placement, permanent custody to agency was in best interest |
| Whether CCDCFS made reasonable efforts to reunify (R.C. 2151.419) | Mother argued agency should have offered more services, earlier, and better follow-through; contested timing of psychological evaluation | Agency showed reasonable case planning: referrals for mental-health, parenting, domestic-violence, basic-needs; attempted services over years; missed appointments by Mother limited effectiveness | Court: Affirmed — competent, credible evidence supported that the agency made reasonable efforts |
| Adequacy of Guardian ad Litem investigation and report | Mother claimed GAL failed to observe certain parent interactions or perform some home visits and omitted interviews | GAL testified as to multiple home visits, interviews, review of records, and attendance at hearings; alleged omissions contradicted record | Court: GAL investigation was adequate; no prejudice shown to Mother |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71, 564 N.E.2d 54 (1990) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498, 857 N.E.2d 532 (2006) (standard for juvenile-court best-interest analysis)