In re B.E.
2014 Ohio 3178
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Appellant Beth Elkins appeals a trial court judgment granting Highland County DJFS permanent custody of her child.
- The trial court awarded permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) after finding the child had been in temporary custody for 12+ months of a 22-month period.
- Appellant argued lack of guardian ad litem violated Juv.R. 4(B) and R.C. 2151.281(C) and prejudiced her case.
- The court found appellant, developmentally disabled, had limited visitation and inconsistent contact with Help Me Grow; she had unstable housing and required ongoing supervision.
- Evidence showed the child bonded with the foster family and the foster parents were willing to adopt; appellant failed to meet housing and caregiving needs.
- The court noted suboptimal engagement during visits and concerns about Scouler’s influence on appellant, but the appellate court upheld the judgment after ruling the issues lacked prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Guardian ad litem appointment proper | Elkins argues failure to appoint a guardian ad litem violated Juv.R. 4(B) and R.C. 2151.281(C). | Court adequately protected Elkins’ interests; counsel safeguarded rights and argued for reunification. | No reversible error; lack of guardian ad litem did not prejudice outcome. |
| Was the abandonment finding supported? | Appellant argues the abandonment finding lacks sufficient weight. | Agency proved abandonment via extended non-contact during critical period. | Abandonment finding upheld as harmless because 12/22 month criterion satisfied under 2151.414(B)(1)(d). |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Baby Girl Baxter, 17 Ohio St.3d 229 (1985) (guardian ad litem duty to protect ward's interests)
- In re Amber G., 2004-Ohio-5665 (2004) (guardians ad litem not prejudicial if counsel protects rights)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (manifest weight review and deference to credibility)
- In re K.J.D., 2013-Ohio-610 (2013) (guardian ad litem may be cumulative; plain error limits)
- In re M.T., 2009-Ohio-6674 (2009) (safeguarding rights does not require guardian ad litem to prompt services)
- In re J.P.B., 2013-Ohio-787 (2013) (limit of B(1) factors; one factor suffices for §2151.414(B)(1))