In re A.L.
2017 Ohio 7689
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- A.L., born 2009, was removed from her mother’s care after the mother fatally stabbed another adult; mother incarcerated; CSB obtained temporary custody and placed A.L. with her two half‑siblings in the home of their relative, Ms. H.
- Father (Thomas A.) had not been primary caregiver, had unstable housing and prior substance issues, but entered and substantially complied with the court’s Family Reunification through Recovery Court program and completed much of the case plan.
- A guardian ad litem requested a bonding assessment for the three siblings; the court ordered the assessment, facilitated by CSB and paid for by Ms. H.; a licensed psychologist performed the assessment and testified.
- Father and Ms. H. each moved for legal custody of A.L.; the magistrate awarded legal custody to Father under protective supervision by CSB, but the juvenile court sustained the guardian ad litem’s objection and awarded legal custody to Ms. H.
- Father appealed, raising due process and sufficiency/weight‑of‑evidence challenges to the legal custody award, a challenge to omission of child support determination, and a statutory challenge that the trial court failed to make the written R.C. 2151.419 reasonable‑efforts findings.
Issues
| Issue | Father's Argument | CSB / Ms. H.'s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the custody order is final and appealable because child support was not decided | Trial court’s failure to rule on child support renders order nonfinal | The custody judgment is a partial final order appealable under App.R. 4(B)(5) | Court: custody order is a partial final, appealable order; Father’s assignment over child support is overruled |
| Whether Father was denied due process by use of the bonding assessor and by reversal of magistrate | Assessor was "hand‑picked" and biased; legal custody award infringes parental rights akin to termination | Assessor was qualified, selected after CSB contact; legal custody is not termination and preserves parental rights; decision governed by child’s best interest | Court: no due process violation; expert was competent and no bias shown; legal custody is less drastic than termination |
| Whether trial court’s reversal of the magistrate (awarding custody to Ms. H.) was against weight / insufficient evidence | Magistrate favored biological father given his case‑plan compliance; trial court improperly favored nonparent | Trial court relied on bonding assessment, guardian ad litem, counselor testimony emphasizing sibling bond, child’s needs and Father’s limited caregiving | Court: trial court’s best‑interest determination affirmed — legal custody to Ms. H. supported by evidence |
| Whether the trial court failed to make the R.C. 2151.419 reasonable‑efforts written findings when continuing removal | Father argued the court omitted mandatory written findings about reasonable efforts to prevent continued removal | CSB did not dispute efforts but the trial court did not include the statutorily required written findings | Court: sustained — trial court must issue the required R.C. 2151.419 written reasonable‑efforts findings; judgment reversed in part and remanded for that purpose |
Key Cases Cited
- In re B.C., 2014-Ohio-2748 (9th Dist.) (legal custody judgment is a partial final order under App.R. 4(B)(5))
- In re K.H., 2016-Ohio-1330 (9th Dist.) (post‑adjudication legal custody decisions are governed by the child's best interest)
- In re N.P., 2004-Ohio-110 (9th Dist.) (no specific statutory test for legal custody; best interest standard applies)
- In re B.G., 2008-Ohio-5003 (9th Dist.) (R.C. 2151.414(D) best‑interest factors provide guidance for legal custody)
- In re L.H., 2016-Ohio-8284 (9th Dist.) (blood relationship does not control best‑interest determination; sibling bonds to be weighed)
- In re J.G., 2013-Ohio-417 (9th Dist.) (trial court must make R.C. 2151.419 reasonable‑efforts findings)