In re D.G.
2013 Ohio 3537
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- CCDCFS took emergency temporary custody of D.G. on July 19, 2011 due to an unsafe home and the mother's disappearance while at the agency.
- Case alleged the mother, M.G., had long-term substance abuse issues and was incarcerated on drug-possession charges; two other children had prior removals.
- On Sept. 22, 2011, CCDCFS filed a neglect/dependency complaint seeking permanent custody; alleged lack of visitation and children’s safety concerns.
- Genetic testing eliminated Collins and Jones as biological fathers; their parental rights were subsequently terminated from the case.
- Adjudicatory hearing on Apr. 18, 2012 resulted in D.G. being adjudged neglected and dependent after M.G. admitted to amended allegations.
- Judgment at the dispositional hearing (Jan. 2013) granted permanent custody of D.G. to CCDCFS; D.G. had been in agency custody for most of his life and bond with foster parents was strong.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody to CCDCFS is against the manifest weight of the evidence | M.G. argues evidence does not prove required factors by clear and convincing standard. | CCDCFS argues evidence shows inability to safely place with either parent and serves D.G.'s best interests. | Not against weight; evidence supports agency custody |
| Whether an interested party (Bogan) could provide a legally secure alternative placement | M.G. contends Bogan was a viable placement option. | Court properly weighed best interests; Bogan testimony favored keeping D.G. in the current foster placement. | No reversible error; Bogan not superior to foster placement |
Key Cases Cited
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954) (establishes clear and convincing standard)
- In re C.C., 187 Ohio App.3d 365, 2010-Ohio-780, 932 N.E.2d 360 (8th Dist. 2010) (case-plan is means to goal, not the goal itself; substantial remedy required)
- In re Z.T., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 88009, 2007-Ohio-827 (2007) (one favorable factor supports permanent custody)
- In re J.M-R, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98902, 2013-Ohio-1560 (2013) (requires clear and convincing evidence for permanent custody; 12+ months in custody relevant)