In re A.R.
2019 Ohio 2166
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- ACCSB obtained ex parte custody after inspecting Mother’s home and finding it unsafe/unsanitary; complaint for temporary custody filed Feb 23, 2018.
- Parents stipulated to dependency; at disposition the child was placed in Father’s temporary custody with protective supervision to ACCSB and a case plan for Mother.
- Mother was minimally compliant with cleaning, mental-health treatment, and obtaining income; Father met his case-plan requirement to provide for the child.
- ACCSB moved to terminate protective supervision and grant legal custody to Father; a semi-annual review hearing was held Aug 21, 2018.
- The GAL and ACCSB recommended legal custody to Father; magistrate awarded legal custody to Father and terminated protective supervision; trial court adopted magistrate’s decision.
- Mother timely objected and appealed, arguing (1) court failed to consider Mother’s ability to parent within a reasonable time, (2) GAL investigation/concerns were not properly considered, and (3) the court failed to adequately consider temporary custody as an alternative.
Issues
| Issue | Means’s Argument | ACCSB/Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by not considering if Mother could parent within a reasonable time | Court failed to consider Mother’s ability to remedy problems and reunify soon | Court considered case-plan compliance, home condition, mental health, and balanced best-interest factors | No error; court considered this circumstance among statutory factors and had competent evidence favoring Father |
| Whether the GAL’s investigation was deficient or her concerns about Father were ignored | GAL failed parts of Sup.R. 48(D); her concerns about Father and investigation deficiencies warranted reversal | GAL conducted interviews, home visit, record review, and recommended custody to Father; Sup.R. violations do not require reversal | No error; GAL’s work was sufficient and court properly weighed her testimony and recommendation |
| Whether the court improperly failed to consider less-permanent options (temporary vs. legal custody) | Court should have ordered temporary custody instead of awarding legal custody | Legal custody (distinct from permanent custody) was considered among dispositional alternatives and is less drastic than permanent custody | No error; court expressly recognized and weighed available dispositional alternatives and chose legal custody as in child’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ferranto, 112 Ohio St. 667 (1925) (defines abuse of discretion concept and its limits)
- In re Mullen, 129 Ohio St.3d 417 (2011) (reiterates broad discretion of trial courts in child-custody proceedings and standard of review)