In re B.J.
2016 Ohio 7440
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- WCCS removed infants B.J. (b. 2013) and L.J. (b. 2015) after L.J. was born drug-exposed and parents tested positive for multiple illegal substances. Temporary custody to WCCS began January 20, 2015.
- Parents received a reunification case plan (substance‑abuse treatment, random drug screens, mental‑health assessment, parenting classes, contact with WCCS). Visitation was supervised weekly but suspended June 2015 for noncompliance and missed drug screens.
- Parents made only sporadic progress: intermittent treatment attendance, multiple positive drug tests (including April 6, 2016), periods of incarceration, no completion of parenting classes, and no in‑person contact with the children since June 2015 beyond sending gifts.
- WCCS moved for permanent custody on December 30, 2015. The guardian ad litem filed a report recommending permanent custody three days before the April 2016 hearing. The court denied parents’ requests to continue and heard testimony.
- Juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that the children were abandoned under R.C. 2151.011(C), could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time (R.C. 2151.414(E) factors), and that permanent custody to WCCS was in the children’s best interest. Court granted permanent custody; parents appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother/Father's Argument | WCCS/Trial Court's Position | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether children were "abandoned" under R.C. 2151.011(C) | Mother argued gifts and intent rebutted the statutory presumption of abandonment | Court found >90 days without contact and gifts were de minimis; presumption not rebutted | Affirmed: findings of abandonment supported by evidence |
| Whether children could be placed with parents within a reasonable time (R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) & (E)) | Parents argued they were progressing and an extension of temporary custody would allow completion of case plan | Agency showed continued substance use, incomplete programs, suspended visitation, unstable housing/employment | Affirmed: multiple R.C. 2151.414(E) factors satisfied; placement within reasonable time unlikely |
| Whether GAL report/recommendation should be considered and whether late filing violated due process or Sup.R. 48 | Mother argued GAL failed to observe children with parents, report filed 3 days before hearing, and thus undermined due process | Court held GAL substantially complied with Sup.R. 48 given terminated visitation; GAL present for cross‑examination; late filing unobjected to and not plain error | Affirmed: GAL recommendation properly considered; no due process violation shown |
| Whether mother received ineffective assistance of counsel for not filing a written R.C. 2151.415 extension motion | Mother claimed counsel was deficient and prejudiced her by not filing the motion | Court found filing such a motion would have been futile given lack of progress and ongoing drug use; no reasonable probability of different outcome | Affirmed: no ineffective assistance—no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (constitutional standard for termination of parental rights requires clear and convincing evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective‑assistance standard)
- In re C.B., 129 Ohio St.3d 231 (role of guardian ad litem and consideration of GAL recommendation)
- In re Baby Girl Baxter, 17 Ohio St.3d 229 (guardian ad litem's investigative/recommendation role)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (plain‑error standard)