In re D.N.
2011 Ohio 3395
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- D.N. was born November 22, 1995 and became a dependent child after removal from parents in 2005.
- D.N. was placed in the legal custody of relatives, then in paternal cousins’ custody until April 2008 when temporary custody moved to Children Services.
- Children Services developed a reunification plan requiring the parents to address drug issues, testing, housing, and family counseling; the parents failed to comply.
- Relatives were investigated for placement; Brother was not approved due to two failed home studies, stability issues, law-enforcement involvement, and a positive drug screen.
- Children Services filed for permanent custody under R.C. 2151.413 in April 2009; GAL and counsel for D.N. recommended granting permanent custody to Children Services.
- The magistrate granted permanent custody in September 2010; the juvenile court adopted the magistrate’s order in January 2011, terminating parental rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was permanent custody to Children Services supported by the evidence? | Mother argues trial court erred in granting permanent custody. | Children Services contends clear and convincing evidence supports best interests and statutory criteria. | Supported by competent, credible evidence; no reversal. |
| Did D.N. have a right to independent counsel free from GAL conflict? | Mother asserts dual GAL/attorney roles created conflict and deprived D.N. of independent counsel. | No plain error; no actual conflict shown; GAL recommendation aligned with child’s wishes. | No plain error; independent-counsel issue resolved against Mother. |
| Did the court err by not placing D.N. with Brother or by failing to make reasonable relative-placement efforts? | Mother argues D.N. should be placed with Brother and that reasonable efforts to place with relatives were not shown. | Evidence showed Brother unsuitable; agency need not show reasonable efforts to place with relatives for permanent custody. | No error; placement with Brother not warranted; reasonable-efforts standard not violated. |
| Did the trial court properly consider D.N.’s wishes in the placement decision? | Mother contends child’s wishes were not considered. | Court could presume consideration of wishes; GAL noted limited attachment to parents and child did not express desire to live with them. | No plain error; wishes considered or presumed considered. |
| Did the court err by not ordering a planned permanent living arrangement (PPLA)? | Mother argues PPLA was appropriate. | No evidence D.N. qualified for PPLA under R.C. 2151.353(A)(5). | No plain error; PPLA not warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.A., 113 Ohio St.3d 88 (2007-Ohio-1105) (parental rights limited by child's welfare; clear-and-convincing standard)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007-Ohio-1104) (clear and convincing evidence required; permanency standards)
- In re Williams, 101 Ohio St.3d 398 (2004-Ohio-1500) (independent counsel considerations for child)
- In re Hilyard, 2006-Ohio-1965 (Ohio Inf.) (guardian ad litem vs. counsel; conflicts and independent counsel factors)