In re E.S.
2017 Ohio 219
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Mother (J.D.) has three children: E.S. (born ~2008), D.H. (born ~2010), and K.H. (born ~2011); father(s) were not consistently available (one incarcerated; the other later deceased).
- Children were emergency-removed in Aug. 2013 after police found poor home conditions, malnourishment, hygiene issues, and untreated medical/developmental needs; placed in CCDJFS temporary custody and received extensive therapies.
- Children were returned to parents Dec. 2014–Apr. 2015; during that time conditions and parenting regressed (missed medical/therapy appointments, medication not given, school absences); reports of physical abuse by Father led to re-removal Apr. 2015.
- CCDJFS filed for permanent custody Jan. 28, 2016 (children had been in agency custody 12+ months of a consecutive 22-month period). Trial occurred Apr. 7 and Apr. 21, 2016.
- Juvenile court granted CCDJFS permanent custody and terminated parental rights; Mother appealed raising five assignments of error, all of which the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | CCDJFS / State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody was in the children’s best interests | Mother argued the court’s best-interest findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence; she points to loving interactions and participation in services | Agency pointed to children’s developmental/medical needs, regression in parental care, Mother’s cognitive/health limits, bonding to foster parents, and GAL recommendation for permanency | Court affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supported best-interest finding; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether the court should have appointed independent counsel for the children because GAL’s recommendation conflicted with children’s wishes | Mother argued E.S. and D.H. told the GAL they wanted to return home, so counsel was required | Agency argued children’s statements were inconsistent/immature and GAL properly reported children’s wishes; appointment not required absent repeated, mature expressions | Court affirmed: children’s wishes were inconsistent and they lacked maturity; appointment of counsel not required |
| Whether CCDJFS made reasonable efforts to identify and evaluate relative/non‑relative placements | Mother argued relatives/local individuals were available and agency failed to investigate | Agency presented testimony it attempted contacts, ran ICPCs, and potential relatives did not follow through or were declined | Court affirmed: record showed reasonable efforts; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether Mother was entitled to appointed counsel at 2013 proceedings/other procedural relief (bifurcation) in this appeal | Mother argued she was indigent and counsel should have been appointed earlier and proceedings bifurcated | Agency and record: 2013 case was closed; current 2015–2016 proceedings show Mother was found indigent and counsel was appointed Apr. 30, 2015 | Court affirmed: issues about the 2013 closed case are not before this appeal; no error in present record |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (describing R.C. 2151.414 two-part test and role of best-interest factors)
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 2004) (procedural requirements for permanent custody motions)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (Ohio 2006) (no single best-interest factor is dispositive)
- In re Williams, 101 Ohio St.3d 398 (Ohio 2004) (child is a party entitled to counsel in certain termination proceedings)
- Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (trial judge best positioned to weigh witness credibility)