2014 Ohio 5397
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- FCCS filed complaints May 11, 2012 after two young children (ages 3 and ~2) were found unattended in public; parents arrested and children placed in agency custody.
- Juvenile court granted and repeatedly extended temporary custody to FCCS; children adjudicated dependent on Sept. 25, 2012.
- Case plan created with reunification goal; Mother had intermittent compliance, multiple incarcerations, unstable housing and employment; Father largely noncompliant and frequently incarcerated.
- FCCS moved for permanent custody; hearing held May 13, 2014 with testimony from the FCCS caseworker and the children’s guardian ad litem (GAL); Father left the hearing early by his request.
- GAL reported the children expressed a desire to be with Mother (D.N.: visit; A.N.: live with Mother) but concluded permanency with FCCS was in their best interests; juvenile court granted FCCS permanent custody on June 13, 2014.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (FCCS / Juvenile Ct.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by not appointing separate counsel for the children when the GAL’s recommendation conflicted with the children’s stated wishes | Father: The GAL’s recommendation conflicted with the children’s wishes, so separate counsel was required to protect the children’s expressed preferences under Juv.R. 4(A) and precedent | FCCS/Juvenile Ct.: GAL may serve as counsel absent case-by-case finding of conflict; children were young and did not consistently or strongly assert wishes requiring independent counsel | Court: No error — appointment of separate counsel not required here given children’s ages, lack of persistent, strong contrary wishes, and ample evidence supporting permanent custody to FCCS |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (state must prove statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1997) (plain-error standard in civil cases is narrowly applied)
- In re Williams, 101 Ohio St.3d 398 (Ohio 2004) (courts should assess on a case-by-case basis whether a GAL must be replaced by separate counsel when recommendations conflict with child’s wishes)