2022 Ohio 4093
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Infant B.T. (born May 2018) was removed at about one month old after serious head injuries; placed with paternal grandparents and remained in FCCS temporary custody.
- FCCS moved for permanent custody (PCC) after B.T. had been in agency custody for more than 12 of 22 consecutive months.
- Mother (K.M.) participated inconsistently in visitation, missed many scheduled visits, completed limited components of her case plan, and had many missed/positive drug screens; father ceased contact and was found to have abandoned the child.
- A guardian ad litem (GAL) filed multiple reports recommending PCC; mother moved to exclude GAL testimony claiming noncompliance with Sup.R. 48 and local rules (failure to observe mother–child visits, untimely report, failure to meet monthly).
- At the PCC hearing the trial court denied exclusion, heard evidence (caseworker, GAL, grandparents, mother), found statutory ground R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) satisfied, and concluded PCC to FCCS was in B.T.’s best interest.
- Mother appealed arguing GAL noncompliance and exclusion error, lack of clear-and-convincing evidence on best interest (including hearsay drug-screen testimony), and insufficient reasonable efforts to reunify; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | FCCS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GAL's testimony/report should be excluded for alleged noncompliance with Sup.R.48/Loc.Juv.R.4 (failure to observe mother–child visits; not meeting monthly; untimely final report) | GAL failed to faithfully perform duties (observe child with parent, file timely final report); testimony should be excluded. | GAL substantially complied and made diligent attempts; Sup.R.48 is not a substantive right and noncompliance is discretionary, not automatic exclusion. | Denied. Court found GAL made reasonable efforts, substantial compliance, and any timing issue did not prejudice mother; exclusion within trial court discretion and was not abused. |
| Whether trial court's PCC decision was against manifest weight/ lacked clear-and-convincing evidence of best interest (including child's wishes) | Record lacked reliable evidence of the child's wishes and overall best-interest findings; insufficient evidence to support PCC. | Statutory ground (12/22 months) established; testimony (GAL, caseworker, grandparents) provided clear-and-convincing support that PCC served child’s best interest; child too young to express wishes. | Affirmed. Court held competent, credible evidence supported best-interest finding; child too young/developmentally unable to express wishes so GAL’s recommendation was permissible. |
| Whether admission of testimony about mother’s positive/failed drug screens was inadmissible hearsay and prejudiced outcome | Caseworker’s testimony about drug screens was hearsay and no lab records were introduced; conviction on that evidence prejudiced the decision. | Mother testified to Suboxone use and marijuana; mother's counsel did not object at trial; any error would not be plain error or outcome-determinative. | Rejected. Mother waived objections by not timely objecting; even if hearsay, no plain error because mother admitted substance use and drug-screen evidence was not outcome-determinative. |
| Whether FCCS failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify before seeking PCC | FCCS did not adequately attempt to reunify or provide services. | Reasonable-efforts findings pertain to pre-permanent-custody dispositional hearings; FCCS and the trial court made reasonable efforts and assisted mother with referrals and transportation. | Rejected. Court held reasonable efforts had been made and statutory framework did not require additional proof at PCC hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (recognizes parents’ fundamental liberty interest in custody and care of children)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997) (explains plain-error standard and its narrow application)
- Karches v. Cincinnati, 38 Ohio St.3d 12 (1988) (appellate courts must construe evidence in the manner most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s judgment)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (interpreting R.C. 2151.419 and scope of reasonable-efforts findings pre-permanent-custody)
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (2008) (explains statutory framework under R.C. 2151.414 governing termination/permanent custody)