In re A.P.
2022 Ohio 1577
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2022Background
- Two children (A.P., age 6; R.P., age 5) were removed after repeated unexplained severe injuries to R.P. (2017 skull fracture/brain bleed; 2018 multiple fractures and other injuries) and allegations of abuse/bruise to A.P.
- Appellee Gallia County JFS obtained temporary custody in 2018; mother (C.G.) completed some case-plan tasks and the children were briefly reunified, but were removed again in Oct. 2018 and remained in the same foster home thereafter.
- JFS moved for permanent custody in Nov. 2019; hearing was held Oct. 2021. Mother had pending criminal charges (plea planned to guilty to endangering children) and asked court to place children in foster mother’s legal custody instead.
- Trial court found children had been in temporary custody for 12+ months of a consecutive 22-month period (R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d)), determined permanent custody was in the children’s best interests, and granted JFS permanent custody (Nov. 3, 2021).
- On appeal mother raised two assignments: (1) trial court misapplied R.C. 2151.414 / decision against manifest weight of the evidence; (2) GAL report allegedly failed Sup.R. 48.06 and counsel was ineffective for not calling the GAL.
- Court of Appeals affirmed: held R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) alone supported permanent custody; declined to find reversible error in alleged Sup.R. 48.06 defects and rejected ineffective-assistance claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother/C.G.) | Defendant's Argument (JFS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody award was against the manifest weight / trial court misapplied R.C. 2151.414(E) | Mother argued the court wrongly found she failed to remedy removal causes, lacked commitment, and that children could not be returned within a reasonable time | JFS pointed to lengthy temporary custody (12+ of 22 months), repeated injuries, foster placement stability, GAL recommendation, and sufficient clear-and-convincing evidence of best interest | Affirmed: court’s finding under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) (12+ months in custody) alone supports award; manifest-weight challenge rejected |
| Whether reliance on GAL report violated Sup.R. 48.06 / denied due process | Mother contended the GAL report lacked required detail and the GAL did not testify, so report should not have been considered | JFS (and court) noted mother did not raise compliance below; superintendence rules are housekeeping and nonjurisdictional; report was not shown to have changed the outcome | Rejected: mother forfeited the complaint by not raising it below; no plain error shown; even if technical defects existed, they were not reversible and result wouldn’t have changed |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not calling the GAL to testify | Mother argued counsel’s failure to call GAL was deficient and prejudiced her case | JFS argued counsel could reasonably decline to call GAL to avoid reinforcing GAL’s adverse recommendation; no showing GAL testimony would have differed | Rejected: strategic decision plausible; mother failed to show deficient performance or prejudice required under Strickland |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 972 N.E.2d 517 (2012) (defines manifest-weight review and weight-of-the-evidence principles)
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538, 895 N.E.2d 809 (2008) (clarifies clear-and-convincing standard in permanent-custody proceedings)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (recognizes fundamental parental liberty interest)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (parental rights require heightened procedural safeguards)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (1984) (deference to trial court’s assessment of witness credibility)