In re D.K.W.
2014 Ohio 2896
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- D.K.W. (age ~3) was found abused/neglected/dependent and placed in agency care in late 2011 after parental abuse and bath-salt use were alleged.
- The agency initially had protective supervision, then temporary custody to the agency and placement with a foster family; parents admitted to abuse and continued drug use.
- Case plan aimed at reunification with parents; parents failed to participate in substance abuse treatment, maintain housing/income, or complete needed assessments and classes.
- D.K.W. was placed with the Runyons (relatives) in Jan 2012 under temporary custody and bonded, but the Runyons later could not continue due to hardship.
- In Dec 2012 the juvenile court again placed D.K.W. with the Agency (same foster family); in mid-2013 the Agency moved for permanent custody; guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody to the Agency.
- On Jan 28, 2014, the court found abandonment by both parents and that permanent custody to the Agency was in D.K.W.'s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused its discretion in denying a continuance for potential relative placement | Mother argues Runyons should have been explored for custody | Agency contends proceeding without further delay was appropriate given two years of delay and lack of intervention by Runyons | No abuse of discretion; denial upheld |
| Whether granting permanent custody to the Agency was in D.K.W.’s best interest given relative options | Mother asserts Runyons/great-grandmother should have been considered and given chance to care for the child | Agency and GAL found no viable relative placement and that child needed a legally secure permanent placement | Yes, permanent custody to the Agency was in the child’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.L., 2012-Ohio-6049 (2d Dist. Greene (2012)) (no abuse of discretion in denying continuance; relative placement not required before permanent custody)
- In re D.S., 2011-Ohio-1279 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga (2011)) (relative placement need not be considered before permanent custody; best interests analyzed)
- In re Patterson, 134 Ohio App.3d 119 (9th Dist. 1999) (willingness of relatives does not alter permanent custody considerations)
- In re Keaton, 2004-Ohio-6210 (4th Dist. Ross (2004)) (child’s best interests require permanent placement if necessary for growth, stability, security)
- In re B.K., 2006-Ohio-4424 (12th Dist. Fayette (2006)) (court not required to favor a relative if not in child’s best interest)