In re A.H.
2015 Ohio 4461
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- A.H., born 2001, had been in FCCS temporary custody since 2002 and experienced at least 17 placements due to severe behavioral and mental-health diagnoses (ADHD, PTSD, RAD, ODD, bipolar) requiring therapeutic care and occasional residential hospitalization.
- Mother M.S. suffers from serious mental illness (schizophrenia/schizoaffective and bipolar), has a long history of noncompliance with case-plan requirements, limited contact with A.H., and exhibited disruptive courtroom behavior and poor insight into mental-health needs.
- FCCS filed for permanent custody on April 4, 2013; the father did not oppose; M.S., through her guardian ad litem John T. Ryerson Jr., opposed and sought alternatives.
- Trial occurred Oct. 20 and 23, 2014; the trial court interviewed A.H. in camera and issued a written decision on Dec. 4, 2014 granting FCCS permanent custody for adoption.
- Ryerson appealed, arguing the court erred by (1) denying him the right to question witnesses and (2) failing to consider or order a Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (PPLA) or continue temporary custody given A.H.’s unadoptability due to psychological issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ryerson) | Defendant's Argument (FCCS / Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denying the guardian ad litem for M.S. the opportunity to question witnesses was reversible error | Ryerson argued the court prevented him from developing evidence and presenting alternatives to permanent custody | Trial court stated it does not allow a guardian ad litem for an adult to ask questions; Ryerson did not object or request to question witnesses and was allowed to testify | No plain error; prior precedent and lack of demonstrated prejudice foreclose reversal |
| Whether the court could order a Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (PPLA) instead of granting permanent custody | Ryerson argued A.H. was eligible for PPLA and that was a less drastic option given her unadoptability | FCCS never requested a PPLA; once an agency with temporary custody files for permanent custody, court lacks authority to place child in PPLA absent agency request | Court lacked authority to order PPLA when agency did not request it; permanent custody proper under the statutes and controlling precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.B., 110 Ohio St.3d 230 (2006) (holding juvenile court cannot place child in a PPLA after an agency with temporary custody files for permanent custody unless the agency requests the PPLA)
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (1997) (noting the gravity of permanent custody determinations and appellate courts' approach)
- State v. Lynn, 129 Ohio St.3d 146 (2011) (plain-error standard description)