In re B.P.
2017 Ohio 2919
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- B.P., born prematurely on April 22, 2015, tested positive for opiates; mother Robin tested positive for opiates and marijuana and admitted prenatal heroin exposure. Marion County Children Services (the Agency) obtained emergency custody May 2015 and temporary custody thereafter.
- The juvenile court adjudicated B.P. abused and dependent and repeatedly reviewed the custody disposition; case plans and administrative reviews were submitted and approved.
- The Agency moved to waive reasonable-efforts requirements, asserting prior involuntary termination of parental rights to three other children; the court granted the waiver.
- The Agency filed for permanent custody December 23, 2015; hearings occurred June–October 2016; the Guardian ad Litem recommended permanent custody to the Agency.
- On October 25, 2016 the juvenile court granted the Agency permanent custody; Robin appealed, arguing the court erred in finding B.P. had been in Agency custody for 12 of the prior 22 months (R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d)).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred in finding the child was in Agency custody 12 of the prior 22 months under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) | Robin: trial court miscalculated custody months; error required reversal | Agency: even if the 12-of-22 finding was mistaken, other statutory grounds and best-interest findings support permanent custody | Court: conceded 12-of-22 calculation may be erroneous but upheld custody based on the court’s alternative finding under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) that child cannot/should not be placed with parents; appeal overruled |
| Whether alternative statutory findings may sustain a permanent-custody award when a 12-of-22 finding is defective | Robin: challenged only the 12-of-22 finding | Agency: alternative R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) showing (parental inability within reasonable time / R.C. 2151.414(E) factors) supports order | Court: alternative finding is unchallenged and sufficient; appellate courts may affirm on alternative grounds |
| Whether the best-interest determination was inadequately considered | Robin: did not separately challenge best-interest findings on appeal | Agency: maintained best-interest conclusion supported permanent custody | Court: because Robin did not dispute best-interest finding, court declined further analysis and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (recognizing parental fundamental liberty interest in child-rearing)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (parental rights are a fundamental liberty interest)
- Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (liberty interest in child-rearing)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (due process protections in parental-rights termination)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (standard of review for custody/termination findings)
- In re Adoption of Lay, 25 Ohio St.3d 41 (same)
- In re Brown, 98 Ohio App.3d 337 (permanent-custody statutory framework and review)