In re A.T.
2019 Ohio 3527
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2019Background
- Three children (A.T., age 12; D.G., age 3; E.G., age 2) were removed from Mother in June 2016 after injuries to D.G. and other safety/neglect concerns; children placed with foster family (D.G.) and non-relative caregivers Mr. & Mrs. H (A.T., E.G.).
- Agency developed case plans requiring parents to obtain stable housing/income, complete parenting/psychological evaluations, follow mental-health treatment, and comply with other services; parents made only limited progress.
- D.G. had significant medical/developmental needs (Chiari malformation, developmental delays, behavioral issues) and had been in foster placement ~18 months when Agency moved for permanent custody; Mr. & Mrs. H cared for A.T. and E.G. for over two years.
- Psychologist (Dr. Lilley) assessed Mother with adjustment disorder and personality disorder with dependency features, concluding long-term, intensive treatment would be required before safe reunification; GAL and caseworker recommended against reunification.
- Magistrate granted permanent custody of D.G. to the Agency and legal custody of A.T. and E.G. to Mr. & Mrs. H; juvenile court overruled parents’ objections and adopted those orders. Appeals by Mother and Father were consolidated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother received ineffective assistance of counsel at the permanent-custody proceeding | Mother: counsel failed to object to hearsay (Foster Mother) and failed to contradict testimony; prejudice resulted | Agency: civil context generally no constitutional guarantee, but parents in PC cases get counsel; record shows no prejudice and court relied on admissible, probative evidence | Court: Mother failed to show deficient performance or prejudice; assignment overruled |
| Whether Agency made reasonable efforts to reunify family before seeking permanent custody | Mother: she completed most case-plan tasks; Agency sought custody prematurely instead of permitting long-term therapy Dr. Lilley recommended | Agency: provided referrals, visits, classes, mental-health monitoring, housing/employment referrals; Mother remained without stable housing/income and maintained risky relationships | Court: Agency made reasonable efforts; Dr. Lilley’s recommendation for years of therapy did not render Agency’s efforts unreasonable |
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported permanent custody of D.G. to the Agency | Parents: award not supported by clear and convincing evidence; Father denied causing removal | Agency: D.G. bonded to foster family; lengthy placement; parents lacked stable housing/income and had mental-health/behavioral concerns; Father abandoned child (90+ days no contact) | Court: clear and convincing evidence supported best-interest factors (interaction/bonding, custodial history, need for legally secure placement, abandonment); PC order affirmed |
| Whether preponderance supported legal custody of A.T. and E.G. to Mr. & Mrs. H | Parents: Father claimed progress on plan; Mother challenged reliance on Dr. Lilley and hearsay; Mother sought return of children | Agency: children bonded to Mr. & Mrs. H; A.T. had PTSD and therapist recommended no contact with Mother; caregivers met children’s special needs | Court: preponderance supported legal custody to Mr. & Mrs. H considering child wishes (A.T.), bonding, medical/therapy needs, and parents’ instability; orders affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (standard for finding abuse of discretion)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental custody interest is a fundamental liberty interest)
- In re Perales, 52 Ohio St.2d 89 (1977) (parental rights subject to child welfare as controlling principle)
- Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71 (1988) (deference to trial court credibility findings in custody matters)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (Ohio application of Strickland standard)
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (1997) (describes permanent termination of parental rights as akin to death penalty; counsel required in PC cases)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (children’s services must make reasonable efforts to reunify except in narrow exceptions)