In re B.M.
2011 Ohio 5176
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- C.M. (mother) appeals permanent custody grant of B.M. to CCDCFS; B.M. born January 8, 2010 with cocaine exposure.
- CCDCFS investigated due to mother’s decades-long cocaine use and prior removals; telephonic removal ordered January 10, 2010.
- January 11, 2010: complaint for abused/dependent child and request for permanent custody; concurrent reunification plan.
- Mother stipulates to temporary custody; enrolled in drug court and residential treatment, but repeatedly failed to attend court dates and comply with services.
- Mother returns to agency on October 4, 2010; subsequently enters additional treatment; visitation with B.M. largely non-existent.
- November 9, 2010 dispositional hearing occurs; guardian ad litem recommends permanent custody to foster. November 30, 2010 journal entry grants permanent custody to CCDCFS; mother appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of counsel at dispositional hearing | Mother claims counsel failed to secure attendance or seek continuance. | Court found mother was present and chose not to testify; counsel not ineffective. | Overruled |
| Timeliness of order on permanent custody | 200-day deadline under R.C. 2151.414 applies; trial court violated it. | Statute not applicable because complaint rather than motion; no jurisdictional attack. | Overruled |
| Clear and convincing findings in journal entry | Journal entry must explicitly recite clear and convincing standard. | No explicit phrase needed; record shows clear and convincing evidence. | Overruled |
| Best interest factors discussion | Court failed to fully articulate all five factors. | Court need not list each factor verbatim; record supports findings. | Overruled |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | Ordinarily supported by evidence that mother failed to remedy conditions and abandoned child. | Evidence supports permanent custody; child’s best interests served. | Affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re B.S., 184 Ohio App.3d 463 (2009-Ohio-5497) (ineffective-assistance standard in guardianship actions)
- In re T.S., 2009-Ohio-5496 (Cuyahoga App. No. 92816) (boilerplate best-interest discussion allowed; focus on record evidence)
- In re Moore, CUYAHOGA App. No. 76942 (2000-Ohio-) (only one best-interest factor need be resolved for permanent custody)