In re E.S.
2014 Ohio 3067
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- J.S. (mother) and Ze.S. (father) are appealing a juvenile-court decision terminating their parental rights and granting permanent custody of E.S. and Z.S. to OCDJFS.
- OCDJFS sought permanent custody after a history of safety-plan violations, neglect, and ongoing concerns about parental sobriety, violence, and instability.
- The family had prior out-of-state involvement in South Carolina (2010–2011) resulting in removal and eventual reunification efforts; Ze.S. later faced drug- and violence-related charges.
- A case plan for reunification was implemented November 9, 2012, with obligations for both parents to complete assessments, counseling, substance-abuse treatment, parenting classes, and sober, supervised visitation.
- J.S. had multiple lapses, including jail time (May 2013), missed or inconsistent visits, and ongoing sobriety issues; Ze.S. showed some compliance but remained subject to concerns about anger, violence, and drug activity.
- The trial court found that RC 2151.414(B)(1)(a) applied and, after weighing the best-interests factors in RC 2151.414(D), granted permanent custody to OCDJFS; J.S. and Ze.S. separately appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was clear and convincing evidence to grant permanent custody | OCDJFS argues parents failed to substantially remedy conditions | Parents contend insufficient evidence and misweighing of factors | Yes; clear and convincing evidence supports termination and best interests |
| Whether the GAL could act as advocate and rely on testimony | J.S. objected to GAL cross-examination and closing argument | GAL properly appointed as attorney and GAL; no error | Not well-taken; dual appointment permitted and testimony admissible |
| Whether GAL compliance with Sup.R. 48 invalidates the recommendation | Kovacs failed to meet minimum Sup.R. 48(D)(13) duties | Investigation adequate given child ages and record; court weighed all evidence | Not plain error; evidence supported by total record |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel regarding Kovacs’ involvement | Failure to object to GAL testimony | No prejudice; cross-examination tested weaknesses | Not well-taken; no reversible error |
| Whether the decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence | Challenged weight of Kovacs’ influence and evidence elsewhere | Court weighed credibility and found substantial evidence | Not against the manifest weight; findings supported by competent credible evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.N., 2011-Ohio-3395 (4th Dist. Ross No. 11CA3213) (dual attorney-GAL appointment permitted; no harmful error)
- Nolan v. Nolan, 2012-Ohio-3736 (4th Dist. Scioto No. 11CA3444) (GAL investigation deficiencies do not mandate exclusion here)
- In re M.Z., 2012-Ohio-3194 (9th Dist. Lorain No. 11CA010104) (trial court may weigh GAL testimony against other evidence)
- In re P.W., 2012-Ohio-3556 (6th Dist. Lucas No. L-12-1060) (aviation of best-interest factors; defer to trial court’s weighing)
- Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (1997) (parental rights are paramount; strict scrutiny in termination)