In re B.J.L., 2019 Ohio 555

Children (ages 8, 5, and 4) were removed in Oct. 2016 after police arrested maternal grandfather for drug trafficking and the home was found unsanitary; mother incarcerated; father initially unreachable. Agency obtained temporary custody and later moved for permanent custody in Mar. 2018.
At permanent-custody hearing, agency caseworker testified father: attended counseling sporadically, tested positive for marijuana multiple times, reported homelessness, provided unverifiable addresses, missed most visitation opportunities (scheduled 18 of 86), and has unresolved criminal charge for alleged assault.
Father admitted past failures to protect children (including admitted sexual molestation by others), receives limited SSDI income, and struggled to maintain stable housing and consistent counseling; he called children weekly and interacted appropriately when visiting.
Foster home provided stability; children improved behaviorally and academically and received counseling/speech therapy; foster parents cannot adopt. Guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody to the agency.
Trial court found children had been in temporary custody for >12 of 22 consecutive months and awarded agency permanent custody. Father appealed raising three assignments of error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Father)	Defendant's Argument (Agency)	Held
Whether trial court erred by failing sua sponte to inquire about appointing independent counsel for child B.J.L., Jr.	Court had to inquire because child’s expressed wishes conflicted with GAL recommendation.	No party requested counsel; child’s statements were inconsistent and not repeatedly contrary to GAL; no mandatory inquiry required.	No error; appointment not required where child’s wishes were inconsistent and not persistent.
Whether failure to inquire about counsel constitutes structural error mandating reversal	Failure to inquire is structural and requires automatic reversal.	Not structural; appellate courts treat such claims under plain-error review if forfeited.	Not structural; plain-error framework applies and claim fails on the merits.
Whether agency proved by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in children's best interests	Father argued strong parent-child bond and improvement during visits weigh against permanent custody.	Agency pointed to father’s unstable housing, inconsistent counseling, substance use, past abandonment/failure to protect, and foster-home stability.	Trial court’s best-interest finding supported; decision not against manifest weight of the evidence.

In re C.B., 951 N.E.2d 398 (Ohio 2011) (addressing appointment of independent counsel where no party requested it)
In re Williams, 805 N.E.2d 1110 (Ohio 2004) (child entitled to independent counsel in certain circumstances; courts must consider maturity and GAL role)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parents have fundamental liberty interest in custody of children)
Goldfuss v. Davidson, 679 N.E.2d 1099 (Ohio 1997) (plain-error doctrine narrowly applied in civil cases)
Eastley v. Volkman, 972 N.E.2d 517 (Ohio 2012) (standard for manifest-weight review)
In re Schaefer, 857 N.E.2d 532 (Ohio 2006) (best-interest analysis requires balancing statutory factors; termination need not be only option)
In re K.H., 895 N.E.2d 809 (Ohio 2008) (permanent custody findings reviewed for clear and convincing evidence)