In re AJ
2016 Ohio 248
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- CCDJFS obtained temporary custody of infant A.J. after mother Brittany gave birth while incarcerated; complaint alleged neglect under R.C. 2151.03(A)(2).
- CCDJFS investigated several relatives (maternal grandmother, great-grandmother, great-aunt) and father Brian Schultow (via ICPC) for placement; each relative/home study raised disqualifying concerns and Schultow’s ICPC process and engagement were inconsistent.
- Schultow, recently released from prison and living in Pennsylvania, never met A.J., missed scheduled visits, and failed to cooperate consistently with the ICPC/home-study process; his whereabouts were unknown at the permanent-custody hearing.
- Guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody to CCDJFS; foster parents had cared for A.J. since she was three days old and the child was bonded to them.
- Trial court granted CCDJFS permanent custody, finding (inter alia) mother incarcerated (R.C. 2151.414(E)(12)), father demonstrated lack of commitment (R.C. 2151.414(E)(4)), no suitable relatives available, and that permanent custody was in the child’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CCDJFS failed to make good-faith/reunification efforts | Brittany: CCDJFS did not make reasonable/diligent efforts to reunify father and child | CCDJFS: statutory "reasonable efforts" provision for certain hearings did not apply here; agency took case-planning and ICPC steps | Court: Overruled — R.C.2151.419(A) inapplicable; E(1) diligence question unnecessary because another E-factor supported custody |
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported award of permanent custody | Brittany: Termination not justified because placement could have been achieved with father (Schultow) or relative (Jodi) | CCDJFS: father never met child, failed visits, failed to cooperate; relatives disqualified or unsuitable; child’s need for permanent, stable placement favored agency | Court: Overruled — competent, credible evidence established best interest and R.C.2151.414(E)(4) lack of commitment by father; permanent custody proper |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (court recognizes parental-child relationship as an essential civil right)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (parental rights subject to child’s welfare)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (child’s welfare is controlling principle in parental-rights cases)
- In re Estate of Haynes, 25 Ohio St.3d 101 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (standard for appellate review where clear-and-convincing evidence required)
- In re Hiatt, 86 Ohio App.3d 716 (permanent custody determinations require clear-and-convincing support)