In re C.C.
2013 Ohio 3195
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Nov. 3, 2011: a complaint alleged C.C., a child under three months, was abused and dependent.
- Emergency ex parte hearing granted temporary custody of C.C. to DCDJFS pending further proceedings.
- Guardian Ad Litem was appointed for C.C. on Nov. 23, 2011.
- Feb. 1, 2012: Case Plan required parents to complete education, parenting classes, and maintain a stable home.
- Feb. 28, 2012: Natasha and Casey pled Not True to the allegations; agency sought continued temporary custody.
- Aug. 6, 2012: parents admitted abuse; dependency claim dismissed; C.C. remained in agency custody; disposition followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consent to permanent custody was voluntary and knowing | Parents knowingly consented after dialogue with court. | Consent should be invalid due to lack of voluntary/knowing understanding. | Consent held voluntary and knowing. |
| Whether permanent custody is in C.C.'s best interest by clear and convincing evidence | Agency presented substantial evidence beyond consent showing best interests favor permanent custody. | Consent was insufficient to support best interests; need more than parental consent. | Clear and convincing evidence supports best interests. |
| Whether either parent received ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel acted competently; parents understood proceedings and consent decision. | Counsel failed by not sufficiently challenging agency's statements on best interests. | No ineffective assistance shown; arguments overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Terrence, 2005-Ohio-3600 (6th Dist. No. L-05-1018 (2005)) (clear-and-convincing standard governs permanent-custody review)
- In re Hiatt, 86 Ohio App.3d 716 (4th Dist.1993) (explains standards for permanent custody proceedings)
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (1990) (defines standard levels of proof (beyond reasonable doubt vs preponderance))
- In re Wise, 96 Ohio App.3d 619 (9th Dist.1994) (appellate review framework for permanent-custody decisions)
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (1997) (parental rights require substantial due process protections)
- Elmer v. Lucas Cty. Children Serv. Bd., 36 Ohio App.3d 241 (6th Dist.1987) (requirement that waiver of parental rights be voluntary and informed)
- In re B.M., 2009-Ohio-1718 (11th Dist. No. 2008-G-2868) (distinguishes application of Juvenile Rules 29 and 34 in dispositions)