In re C. B-W
2017 Ohio 8901
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Child (born 3/24/2015) was removed from parents at birth after hospital concerns about mother’s disengagement and parental history; MCCS obtained temporary custody and placed the child with foster parents the day the child left the hospital.
- MCCS developed a case plan; mother had history of mental-health issues, substance abuse concerns, prior MCCS involvement, and later was incarcerated; father failed to complete case-plan tasks and had substance/violence issues.
- Paternal grandmother (North Carolina) eventually sought custody; an ICPC home study was completed but she had little contact with the child until ~April 2016 and attended visits infrequently.
- Foster parents had cared for the child since placement (about 11 months) and testified to a strong parent–child bond; MCCS and GAL supported stability with foster parents.
- Trial court (juvenile division) barred removal of the child from Ohio without prior court order, later granted legal custody to the foster parents; mother appealed raising four assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Foster parents / MCCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Court considered and enforced foster parents’ ex parte motion to prohibit out-of-state placement when they were not yet parties | Trial court erred because foster parents were not parties when motion filed; thus motion was improper | Juvenile court has discretion under Juv.R.2(Y) to name foster parents parties; best interest of child justified intervention | Court: no abuse of discretion; motion and later intervention permissible and removal prohibition appropriate |
| 2) Legal custody to foster parents was against manifest weight of evidence | Mother argued custody should have gone to paternal grandmother (or be reunified) | Foster parents and MCCS argued child was bonded to foster parents, parents hadn’t progressed, grandmother delayed/limited contact and lived out-of-state | Court: award of legal custody to foster parents was supported by evidence and not an abuse of discretion |
| 3) Trial court erred in admitting lay witness testimony that functioned as expert opinion (Candy Barr) | Mother argued Barr gave expert-style testimony (attachment/ACE material) without qualification | Court noted rules of evidence are limited in dispositional hearings (Juv.R.34(B)); Barr testified to experience and observations; court admitted as lay opinion based on experience | Court: admission not plain error; testimony admissible and properly treated as lay opinion |
| 4) Ineffective assistance of counsel | Mother claimed counsel was ineffective at dispositional hearing | State/other parties noted ineffective-assistance doctrine has limited application outside criminal or permanent-custody contexts; this was a legal-custody disposition | Court: declined to extend ineffective-assistance review here and did not address merits; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.R., 843 N.E.2d 1188 (Ohio 2006) (distinguishing legal custody from termination of parental rights and explaining residual parental rights)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 674 N.E.2d 1159 (Ohio 1997) (trial court has wide latitude in custody decisions; appellate deference to factfinder)
- Miller v. Miller, 523 N.E.2d 846 (Ohio 1988) (principles governing discretion in family-custody determinations)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (Ohio 1984) (appellate courts should not substitute credibility determinations for trial court)
- Karches v. Cincinnati, 526 N.E.2d 1350 (Ohio 1988) (interpretation of evidence in favor of sustaining trial court findings)
- In re Cunningham, 391 N.E.2d 1034 (Ohio 1979) (best interest of child is primary consideration in disposition)