In re C.C.
2017 Ohio 8620
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Two minor boys, C.C. (b. 2002) and L.C. (b. 2001), were adjudicated dependent and placed in planned permanent living arrangements (PPLA) because of severe, ongoing mental-health and behavioral problems requiring residential treatment.
- Both children had long histories of placements in residential facilities; neither could safely return to Mother’s home nor be placed in a family/adoptive home given their treatment needs.
- MCJFS filed a motion (July 2016) to modify disposition from PPLA to permanent custody, premised on its belief that a statutory change requiring PPLA children to be at least 16 would soon disqualify these boys from PPLA placements. MCJFS did not obtain a court ruling on the statutory change before moving for permanent custody.
- The juvenile court found the children had been in MCJFS custody for over 12 of 22 months but denied permanent custody, concluding permanent custody was not in the children’s best interests because maintaining the mother–child bond and continuity of care was important for their stability.
- On appeal, MCJFS argued the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion; the appellate court confined review to whether clear and convincing evidence supported the permanent-custody finding and affirmed the juvenile court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (MCJFS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PPLA-to-permanent-custody modification was required because of an upcoming statutory age change | The new federal and impending Ohio law require PPLA placements to be 16+, so these children no longer qualify for PPLA and agency must seek permanent custody | The trial court never adjudicated that legal question; MCJFS sought permanent custody based on a future/pending law rather than current grounds | Court declined to decide the statutory-change issue; noted a motion must allege current grounds and MCJFS did not obtain ruling on the law change |
| Whether MCJFS introduced clear and convincing evidence under the first prong (12-of-22 months) for permanent custody | Alleged multiple statutory grounds; primarily that children were in agency custody over 12 of 22 months | Trial court found 12-of-22 but recognized PPLA is legal custody, raising questions whether PPLA time counts as temporary custody | Appellate court accepted trial court’s 12-of-22 finding for purposes of review but did not resolve whether PPLA time qualifies as temporary custody |
| Whether granting permanent custody was in the children’s best interests under R.C. 2151.414(D) | Permanent custody necessary because children require long-term residential treatment and agency must secure permanency plan | Mother maintained strong, positive, ongoing bond; children wanted to remain legally connected to Mother; guardians ad litem opposed/reluctant to sever parental ties given children’s needs | Court held MCJFS failed to prove permanent custody was in the children’s best interests and affirmed denial |
| Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying permanent custody | MCJFS contended denial was an abuse because statutory circumstances changed and children cannot be returned to Mother or placed in adoptive/foster homes | Trial court considered children’s wishes, custodial history, mother’s involvement, GAL recommendations, and potential harm from severing ties | No abuse of discretion; appellate court overruled agency’s assignment of error |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 2004) (motion for permanent custody must allege existing grounds)
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (Ohio 1996) (two-prong permanent custody test: statutory grounds and best-interest analysis)