In re B.J., 2021 Ohio 373

HCJFS filed for temporary custody of newborn B.J. days after birth; B.J. was placed in a foster-to-adopt home and remained there throughout the proceedings.
Maternal grandfather (in Nebraska) sought placement via the ICPC; an ICPC home study ultimately approved his home, though he had only visited B.J. twice.
HCJFS moved to modify temporary custody to permanent custody in March 2019, alleging parents could not or should not have placement and that permanent custody was in B.J.’s best interest.
A magistrate found parents inappropriate and granted an extension of temporary custody with placement to maternal grandfather; HCJFS and the guardian ad litem objected.
The juvenile court overruled the magistrate, granted permanent custody to HCJFS, and found (among other things) B.J. was abandoned by parents and needed a legally secure placement.
The court of appeals reversed, holding the trial court lacked clear-and-convincing evidence that permanent custody was in B.J.’s best interest, noting the ICPC approval, grandfather’s stability/support, and that concerns about his ability to protect B.J. from mother were speculative.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had clear-and-convincing evidence that granting HCJFS permanent custody was in B.J.’s best interest	HCJFS: child needs legally secure placement; child bonded to foster family; parents abandoned child; GAL recommended permanent custody	Mother & maternal grandfather: insufficient evidence; maternal grandfather approved by ICPC, stable home, visits positive, able/willing to protect child; custodial-history timing did not support one finding relied on by court	Reversed: appellate court held the best-interest finding lacked sufficient evidence, especially given ICPC approval and speculative concerns about grandfather’s ability to protect B.J.; remanded

In re K.H., 895 N.E.2d 809 (Ohio 2008) (defines "clear and convincing" evidence standard for juvenile-custody proceedings)