In re C.A.
2014 Ohio 1550
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Child (C.T.L.A.) placed in Hocking County Children Services (now South Central Ohio JFS) temporary custody Nov 2011; adjudicated dependent Jan 2012.
- Mother (J.N.) incarcerated for burglary and is a registered sex offender; incarceration began Aug 2012 with release scheduled Nov 2015.
- Agency moved for permanent custody May 2013; hearing held Oct 17, 2013; child had been in same foster home ~2 years and was bonded to foster family.
- Guardian ad litem (GAL) made an oral recommendation for permanent custody at the hearing but did not file a written report; the GAL recommended permanency due to mother’s incarceration and uncertain ability to reunify.
- Trial court found child not competent to express wishes, that child could not/should not be placed with parents within a reasonable time, and awarded permanent custody to the agency Oct 31, 2013.
- Mother appealed, raising (1) failure to appoint GAL as counsel or separate counsel for the child, (2) ineffective GAL (no written report / failure to convey child’s wishes), and (3) manifest-weight challenges to certain R.C. 2151.414(D)/(E) findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by not appointing GAL as counsel for child | Mother: court should have appointed GAL as child’s counsel (dual role) | State: no timely objection; no prejudice shown; plain error not established | No plain error; appellate court affirmed (no reversible error) |
| Whether trial court erred by failing to appoint independent counsel for child | Mother: child entitled to independent counsel because GAL did not present child’s wishes or file report | State: child was under 3, incompetent to state wishes; no conflict between child’s wishes and GAL; independent counsel unnecessary | No plain error; appointment of counsel not required under circumstances |
| Whether GAL rendered ineffective assistance (no written report; failed to inform court of child’s wishes) | Mother: GAL violated R.C. 2151.414(C)/Sup.R.48 and was ineffective, prejudicing the proceeding | State: GAL testified and recommended permanent custody; any deficiency did not affect outcome; Sup.R.48 not a source of substantive rights | No reversible prejudice; any failure was harmless and did not change result |
| Whether findings under R.C. 2151.414(D)/(E) (child’s wishes; need for legally secure placement; E(9) and E(15)) were against manifest weight | Mother: court failed to consider child’s wishes and incorrectly found need for legally secure placement and applicability of E(9)/E(15) | State: court considered child’s wishes via GAL and found child incompetent; mother incarcerated long-term so permanency required; even if E(9)/E(15) findings erroneous, ample other evidence supports permanent custody | Manifest weight challenge rejected; trial court’s permanent custody decision supported by clear and convincing evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Clinkscale, 122 Ohio St.3d 351, 911 N.E.2d 862 (2009) (preservation of error principles)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 679 N.E.2d 1099 (1997) (plain error in civil cases limited to rare circumstances)
- In re Williams, 101 Ohio St.3d 398, 805 N.E.2d 1100 (2004) (child is a party and may be entitled to independent counsel in certain circumstances)
- In re C.B., 129 Ohio St.3d 231, 951 N.E.2d 398 (2011) (role and duties of GAL; best-interests focus)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 972 N.E.2d 517 (2012) (manifest-weight standard explanation)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997) (definition of weight of the evidence)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (parental rights are fundamental but may be terminated when child’s best interest requires it)