In re A.J.O., 2019 Ohio 975

HCJFS obtained interim custody of A.J.O. and M.N.O. after removal for concerns about domestic violence between mother and Joseph Kidd and the children’s developmental/behavioral needs; the children were adjudicated dependent and placed in temporary custody.
Permanent-custody motion filed July 31, 2017; trial occurred May 10 and July 20, 2018; magistrate granted permanent custody to HCJFS and the trial court later adopted that decision after an objections hearing.
Key factual findings: mother maintained a continuing relationship with Kidd (who had been convicted of assaulting mother), the children feared Kidd and alleged possible sexual abuse, and mother misled agencies about contact with Kidd.
The children have significant needs: both have ADHD and IEPs; A.J.O. has severe cognitive delays (IQ ~50) and self-injurious/ingestive behavior; mother’s own cognitive limitations (IQ ~50) impaired her ability to manage appointments, medication, and behavior management.
Mother made some progress in therapy and services but continued to have facilitated visits (no progress to unsupervised) and refused home assessments; relatives offered support but were unsuitable for placement due to prior agency concerns.
The guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody to HCJFS; both statutory prongs were found satisfied (children had been in agency custody 12 of 22 months, and permanent custody was in the children’s best interests).

Issue	Mother’s Argument	HCJFS/Respondent’s Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred in awarding permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414	Mother argued she completed or progressed on case plan services and could safely reunify the children within a reasonable time	Agency argued statutory "12 of 22" prong was met and mother hadn’t remedied removal causes (continued relationship with Kidd, inability to manage children) so permanent custody was in children’s best interests	Affirmed: both statutory prongs satisfied; permanent custody supported by clear and convincing evidence
Whether allowing independent (In re Williams) counsel for the children to withdraw violated due process or local rules	Mother argued withdrawal deprived the children of counsel and created a conflict with the GAL’s recommendation	Agency and GAL pointed out children’s stated wishes aligned with GAL and the In re Williams attorney reported no conflict; withdrawal was unobjected to at hearing	Affirmed: no plain error; withdrawal permissible because no conflict existed

Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954) (defines clear-and-convincing evidence standard)
Myers v. Garson, 66 Ohio St.3d 610, 614 N.E.2d 742 (1993) (appellate review of custody decisions focuses on best-interest test and evidence supporting it)
In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100, 391 N.E.2d 1034 (1979) (termination of parental rights is extreme but permitted when necessary for child’s welfare)
In re Fassinger, 42 Ohio St.2d 505, 330 N.E.2d 431 (1975) (same principle regarding termination as last resort)
In re Williams, 101 Ohio St.3d 398, 805 N.E.2d 1100 (2004) (child is entitled to independent counsel when child’s wishes conflict with GAL’s recommendation)
State v. Clinkscale, 122 Ohio St.3d 351, 911 N.E.2d 862 (2009) (timely objection required to preserve appellate review; issues raised first on appeal are subject to plain-error review)
State v. Peagler, 76 Ohio St.3d 496, 668 N.E.2d 489 (1996) (appellate courts generally do not consider errors that could have been raised at trial)
State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502, 873 N.E.2d 306 (2007) (plain-error doctrine requires an obvious error that affected trial outcome)
In re Clark, 141 Ohio App.3d 55, 749 N.E.2d 833 (8th Dist. 2001) (mother has standing to assert child’s right to counsel in permanent-custody proceedings)