In re A.C.H., 2011 Ohio 5595

GCCS filed a dependency and emergency custody action in November 2009 after the father admitted sexual abuse; the trial court granted emergency custody and later temporary custody.
In January 2010 the court adjudicated the children dependent and continued the temporary custody arrangement; the father was later incarcerated following a guilty plea to gross sexual imposition.
GCCS collected evidence showing the father had not completed required mental health evaluation or substance abuse counseling and had history of unstable housing; the oldest daughter had suicide attempts and was placed in a therapeutic foster home.
A guardian ad litem and therapists recommended against returning the children to the father, citing trauma, fear, and safety concerns, and favored a permanent placement with GCCS or potential adopters.
Relatives were explored for placement, but health, process, and eligibility issues hindered their suitability; the Nevada relatives did not complete required steps, and the grandfather/ grandmother options were deemed unsuitable.
On February 9, 2011 the trial court granted GCCS permanent custody, concluding the children could not or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time and that permanent custody best served their interests. The father appealed raising two assignments of error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether clear and convincing evidence supports permanent custody	Abele/State argued clear and convincing evidence showed inability to place with either parent and need for secure permanency.	R.H. contends there was not sufficient evidence to terminate parental rights and that relatives could have been temporary custodians.	Yes; the evidence supported permanent custody to GCCS.
Whether absence from the hearing and lack of prison transport violated due process or counsel’s effectiveness	Even in appellant's absence, counsel represented him and record showed no prejudice; absence did not render proceedings unfair.	Appellant asserts he was denied meaningful participation and that trial counsel was ineffective for not securing his presence or alternate participation.	No; absence did not prejudice the outcome; counsel's performance was not ineffective.

In re Estate of Haynes, 25 Ohio St.3d 101 (1986) (defines clear and convincing standard)
Schiebel v. State, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (1990) (standard for appellate review of custody findings; deference to trial court on credibility)
In re Bishop, 36 Ohio App.3d 123 (1987) (court considerations for permanency decisions in custody cases)
In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (1979) (parental rights subject to welfare of the child; foundational custody principle)
In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (2006) (permanent custody framework and best interests considerations)