In re C.B.
2015 Ohio 3709
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- C.B., a 3-year-old with Stage IV neuroblastoma, was hospitalized and under cancer treatment when the parents retained care responsibilities under court order.
- On June 15, 2012, JFS filed a complaint alleging neglect; C.B. was placed in agency emergency custody and adjudicated neglected.
- In 2012–2013 the parents were incarcerated for robbery; maternal grandparents sought custody but were denied; C.B. remained in foster care transitioning from hospital to home with foster parents in June 2013.
- In September 2014 the agency moved for permanent custody; a magistrate held a hearing in January 2015, with mother present and testifying about her rehabilitation efforts.
- The juvenile court adopted the magistrate’s decision, granting permanent custody to the agency; mother appealed arguing the decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- The court held that the two-part RC 2151.414 test was satisfied: over 12 months of permanent custody within a 22-month window and that permanent custody was in C.B.’s best interest given his health needs and stability with the foster family.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody to the agency is in C.B.’s best interest under RC 2151.414(D). | Mother asserts best interests favor returning C.B. to her. | Agency argues best interests require stability and health care oversight via permanent custody. | Yes; best interest supported by stability and health needs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 452 U.S. 690 (U.S. Supreme Court (1981)) (clear and convincing standard governs permanent custody)
- In re S.H., 2015-Ohio-1763 (12th Dist. 2015) (manifest weight standard review in custody appeals)
- In re C.Y., 2015-Ohio-1343 (12th Dist. 2015) (weighs best-interest factors in RC 2151.414(D))
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for determining manifest weight)
- In re G.F., 2014-Ohio-2580 (12th Dist. 2014) (best-interest analysis with health considerations)
- In re E.G., 2014-Ohio-2007 (12th Dist. 2014) (child’s special health needs informing placement)