In re A.J.
2014 Ohio 2734
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- FCCS became involved in 2005–2006 due to educational neglect and alleged abuse of D.J., leading to dependency adjudication and temporary custody of A.J. and C.D. on January 29, 2007.
- The children have remained in foster care since 2007 under a case plan addressing parenting, counseling, and basic needs.
- FCCS filed for permanent custody in November 2008 after extensions of temporary custody, with a trial spanning 2012–2013.
- During trial, D.J. was returned to mother, but the court ultimately granted FCCS permanent custody of A.J. and C.D.
- Mother appealed claiming due process violations and lack of clear evidence that termination was in the children's best interests.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding that FCCS timely pursued dispositions and there was competent clear-and-convincing evidence for permanent custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether temporary custody terminated under sunset provision | A.J. and C.D. argued FCCS failed to timely file under 2151.415(A) so custody should return to mother. | FCCS timely filed motions extending temporary custody; sunset rule did not end jurisdiction because disposition motions continued custody. | Temporary custody continued pending disposition; dismissal not required. |
| Whether permanent custody is in the best interest of the children | Mother contends strong bonds and potential benefits of returning to her care negate permanency. | FCCS showed mother’s failure to complete case plan; GAL recommended permanent custody; children lacked secure placement with mother. | Permanent custody to FCCS affirmed; clear and convincing evidence supported best interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Young Children, 76 Ohio St.3d 632 (Ohio 1996) (sunset date and continued jurisdiction; evaluate mitigated problems if no motion)
- In re A.W., 2008-Ohio-718 (4th Dist. 2008) (court may proceed despite sunset when motion to extend custody is timely)
- In re H.D., 2014-Ohio-228 (10th Dist. 2014) (best interest standard; clear and convincing evidence required)
- In re Bray, 2005-Ohio-1540 (10th Dist. 2005) (best interest factors; review of evidence is limited to substantial support)