2018 Ohio 4381
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Children A.H. (b. 2010) and D.W. (b. 2011) were placed with Lucas County Children Services (LCCS) in April 2015 due to parental substance abuse, mental-health issues, criminal concerns, and the death of a prior caretaker.
- LCCS provided case-plan services to parents; minimal progress was made. Legal custody was briefly awarded to a third-party caretaker (Jackie Biddle), who later died, returning custody to LCCS.
- LCCS filed for permanent custody in February 2017. Father (De.W.) was incarcerated, and later executed a written “Permanent Custody Agreement and Waiver of Rights to Hearing,” stipulating to facts in LCCS’s motion and waiving a contested hearing.
- Maternal great-grandmother (J.N.) filed a third-party complaint seeking legal custody and sought visitation; her motions were denied or not granted. She testified at the custody hearing but had past child-welfare referrals and limited supervised visits with the children.
- The juvenile court granted LCCS permanent custody and denied great-grandmother’s request for legal custody. Father and great-grandmother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father’s waiver/surrender of parental rights was knowing and intelligent | Father: court failed to advise him about the pending third-party custody complaint during Juv.R. 29(D) colloquy, so waiver was not fully informed | State/LCCS: Father signed written waiver, consulted counsel, and affirmed understanding in court | Waiver was valid; no requirement to discuss great-grandmother’s pending motions during Juv.R. 29(D) colloquy |
| Whether granting permanent custody to LCCS was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Father: LCCS failed to contact him after release; termination was improper and court relied improperly on his waiver | LCCS: Father stipulated before his release; record shows chronic substance abuse, incarcerations, and failure to complete services | Court’s finding that R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) applied was supported by clear and convincing evidence; termination affirmed |
| Whether the court should have placed children in great-grandmother’s legal custody instead of awarding permanent custody to LCCS | Great-grandmother: presented witnesses and testified she could care for children; argued best interests favored her custody | LCCS/guardian ad litem: great-grandmother had limited supervised visits, prior child-welfare concerns, questioned judgment, and lacked approved home-study; children bonded to foster family and need legally secure placement | Trial court did not find great-grandmother’s evidence credible and reasonably denied legal custody; decision affirmed |
| Whether trial court properly applied best-interest factors under R.C. 2151.414(D) | Great-grandmother: asserted clear and convincing evidence supported legal custody | LCCS: court considered interaction, child wishes, custodial history, need for legally secure placement, and other statutory factors | Court explicitly considered statutory best-interest factors and reasonably concluded permanent custody to LCCS was in children’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Elmer v. Lucas Cty. Children Servs. Bd., 36 Ohio App.3d 241 (Ohio Ct. App. 1987) (waiver of parental rights must be knowing and made with full understanding of consequences)
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (Ohio 1996) (court must find by clear and convincing evidence that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent under R.C. 2151.414(E) before granting permanent custody)