In re A.M.A., 2013 Ohio 3779

Heather M. Martin gave birth to A.M.A. on June 18, 2012 and the Agency sought emergency custody due to concerns for the child’s well‑being.
Dr. Howard Eckstein reported the child was high risk for neglect and Heather exhibited erratic behavior and refused to bring the child back for weight checks.
The Agency obtained temporary custody and a GAL was appointed; the court found probable neglect and removed A.M.A. from Heather’s home.
Heather admitted neglect at an adjudication hearing and the court converted the matter to a dependency case; she later sought a more definite statement and counsel changes occurred.
Heather’s case plan focused on treating her schizoaffective/bipolar disorders, completing psychological and parenting evaluations, and cooperating with releases for information and unannounced visits.
The GAL moved for legal custody to the Martins based on Dr. Tennenbaum’s findings and Heather’s lack of cooperation; the court ordered temporary custody with protective supervision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Reasonableness of efforts under RC 2151.419	Heather contends the Agency failed to make reasonable efforts to prevent removal	Agency asserts it made reasonable, diligent efforts under the case plan	Reasonable efforts found; agency duties satisfied under the circumstances
Best interests supporting legal custody to Martins	Heather argues custody should remain with her or reunify if possible	Martins provide a safe, stable home and Heather’s cooperation was lacking	Modification to legal custody to Martins affirmed as in A.M.A.’s best interest

In re M.D., 2008-Ohio-4259 (10th Dist. Franklin No. 07AP–954, 2008–Ohio–4259) (court may award legal custody to non-parent when in child’s best interest; abuse of discretion standard)
In re N.F., 2009-Ohio-2986 (10th Dist. Franklin No. 08AP–1038, 2009–Ohio–2986) (legal custody to non-parent requires best interest and preponderance evidence)
In re Evans, 2001-Ohio-2302 (3d Dist. Allen No. 1–01–75, 2001–Ohio–2302) (case plans are tools to facilitate reunification; agency must diligently pursue goals)
In re Leveck, 2003-Ohio-1269 (3d Dist. Hancock Nos. 5–02–52, 5–02–53, 5–02–54, 2003–Ohio–1269) (reasonable efforts standard considers health and safety; agency diligence under circumstances)
In re T.P., 2012-Ohio-4614 (12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2012–02–004, 2012–Ohio–4614) (emphasizes child welfare interests and best interests in dispositional decisions)
In Brown, 98 Ohio App.3d 337 (3d Dist. 1994) (agency bears burden to show reasonable efforts in reunification context)