In re E.G.
2014 Ohio 2007
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Agency received a referral in Jan 2011 alleging mother abused drugs and prostituted herself at home; services were provided to family.
- Mother asked for help picking up E.G. from bus stop in Sept 2011; father could not provide care or alternatives.
- E.G. was taken into custody and alleged neglected and dependent; court found neglect and dependency on Feb 6, 2012.
- Mother surrendered her parental rights; father made little progress on the case plan; agency filed for permanent custody on Dec 4, 2012.
- E.G. has autism; placed in a therapeutic foster home since removal; progress noted and foster family seeks adoption.
- Trial court granted permanent custody to the agency; father appeals asserting lack of best-interest support and evidentiary insufficiency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the best-interest finding supported by clear and convincing evidence? | E.G.'s best interests require parental restoration if feasible, challenging best-interest finding. | Agency and GAL showed secure placement and progress; best interests favor permanent custody. | Yes; best-interest finding supported by clear and convincing evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. Supreme Court 1982) (reaffirms strict clear and convincing standard for permanency)
- In re Starkey, 150 Ohio App.3d 612 (7th Dist. 2002) (appellate review limited to evidence supporting court’s finding)
- In re Rodgers, 138 Ohio App.3d 510 (12th Dist. 2000) (conflict in evidence governs reversal of custody finding)
- In re E.B., 2010-Ohio-1122 (12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2009-10-139, CA2009-11-146) (best-interest factors guiding permanent custody determinations)