In re B.S.
2018 Ohio 4645
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Mother (T.S.) appealed the juvenile court’s grant of permanent custody of her three children (ages 10, 8, 6) to Pike County Children Services Board (PCCSB).
- Children had not lived with mother in over three years: temporary custody to Scioto County Children Services (SCCS) Jan 2015–Feb 2017, then legal custody to paternal grandparents Feb–Nov 2017; PCCSB obtained emergency custody Nov 2017 after reports of filthy conditions, infestations, and behavioral/mental-health crises.
- Medical evidence: a psychiatric nurse practitioner diagnosed all three children with serious disorders (PTSD, psychosis, ADHD, disruptive behavior); children stabilized significantly on medication and in foster placement and regressed while with grandparents.
- Mother had longstanding anxiety/mental-health issues, inconsistent visits (often cut short), prior failure to complete case plan tasks, and continued unstable housing and relationships with an abusive partner.
- Trial court found (1) children could not be placed with parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with them, (2) children had been in agency custody for ≥12 of 22 months, and (3) permanent custody was in children’s best interests; court awarded PCCSB permanent custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court’s permanent-custody award was against manifest weight/sufficiency | Mother: she can care for the children; evidence insufficient to terminate parental rights | PCCSB: substantial evidence (children’s serious needs, mother’s instability, custodial history, improvement in foster care) supports permanent custody | Court affirmed. Although R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) was inapt because no reunification case plan was offered for the new complaint, the court’s finding was supported under R.C. 2151.414(E)(16) and the best-interest factors. |
| Whether denial of mother’s continuance to retain private counsel was an abuse of discretion | Mother: denial prevented her from obtaining private counsel and was arbitrary | PCCSB: delay would harm children’s mental-health stability and inconvenience witnesses; mother had appointed counsel and prior continuance had already occurred | Court affirmed denial. Trial court reasonably balanced interests (children’s need for prompt resolution, prior continuance, witness inconvenience); mother did not show prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (parents have fundamental liberty interest in child-rearing)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (manifest-weight review principles)
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (clear-and-convincing standard in permanent-custody cases)
- Schiebel v. [State of Ohio], 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (reviewing record for sufficiency to meet clear-and-convincing standard)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (best-interest balancing for permanent custody)