In re E.B.
2017 Ohio 2672
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Parents K.B. (mother) and G.B. (father) are biological parents of three children: A.B. (2007), J.B. (2008), and E.B. (2015). FCCS had prior involvement dating to 2010.
- A.B. and J.B. were removed in 2010 after domestic violence and mother’s substance abuse; temporary custody continued for years with intermittent reunification to G.B., then re-removal in Jan. 2015.
- E.B., born Aug. 30, 2015, is medically fragile (tracheotomy, feeding tube, heart/skull defects); FCCS obtained temporary custody Jan. 2016 and moved for permanent custody.
- G.B. has a lengthy criminal/domestic-violence history and was incarcerated at the custody trial (sentenced for forgery/tampering); K.B. has documented chemical dependency and mental-health issues and minimal compliance with case-plan requirements.
- Juvenile court granted permanent custody to Franklin County Children Services for all three children and terminated parental rights; both parents appealed (G.B. appealed as to all three; K.B. appealed as to E.B.). Appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (FCCS) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody of A.B. and J.B. was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Permanent custody appropriate because children had been in agency custody long enough and best interests favored permanence | G.B.: trial court findings were inconsistent and evidence favored return to father | Affirmed: statutory ground R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) met; best-interest factors supported award to FCCS |
| Whether permanent custody of E.B. was proper given parents' circumstances | E.B. cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time; medically fragile child needs legally secure permanent placement | Parents argued they could (or should be given time to) care for E.B.; K.B. challenged findings and sought psychiatric assistance | Affirmed: R.C. 2151.353/2151.414(E) factors supported finding one or more parental bars and best interest favored FCCS |
| Whether juvenile court erred by failing to appoint a psychiatric expert for K.B. sua sponte | No appointment required because K.B. did not request one and mental health was not the predominant issue | K.B.: due process required appointment once her mental health was placed in evidence | Denied: appointment not required absent timely request and where mental health was secondary to other critical factors (e.g., E.B.’s medical needs, substance abuse) |
| Whether inconsistencies in court’s alternative findings required reversal | FCCS: any inconsistency is harmless where an objective statutory ground (12+ months custody) is satisfied | G.B.: inconsistencies (e.g., alternative findings on abandonment and custody duration) show error/prejudice | Denied: inconsistencies were harmless because subsection (d) (12+ months in custody) was satisfied and dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (recognition of fundamental parental rights)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (parental right to raise child is constitutionally protected)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (parental rights subject to child’s welfare)
- Karches v. Cincinnati, 38 Ohio St.3d 12 (appellate deference when evidence allows multiple constructions)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (clarifies clear-and-convincing standard in custody context)
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (termination of parental rights compared to a severe penalty requiring procedural protections)
- In re Shaeffer Children, 85 Ohio App.3d 683 (court-appointed psychiatric expert required when parental mental health is the predominant and determinative issue)