In re E.W.
2014 Ohio 2534
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- CCDCFS received KIDS hotline information; mother A.L. was intoxicated when social worker picked up her children and a staffing was held.
- Emergency custody order issued; allegations included mother’s substance abuse, unstable housing, and lack of father’s support; children placed in foster care.
- Kinship placement with T.G., a non-blood kin, began June 7, 2012; GAL recommended continued temporary custody with potential permanency for T.G. if mother did not comply with case plan.
- Mother failed to complete case plan items, including consistent treatment, housing, and mental health needs; visits with children became inconsistent and then largely ceased.
- CCDCFS filed for permanent custody on January 17, 2013; GAL and social workers supported continued temporary custody; father remained incarcerated with limited services.
- Trial court awarded permanent custody to CCDCFS on August 23, 2013; AL sought legal custody by Z.A. (the maternal aunt) but the court denied this and denied AL’s overall custody motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is permanent custody to CCDCFS in the children’s best interests? | AL contends best interests justify relative custody or reunification. | CCDCFS asserts severed parental rights are necessary; permanency with agency is in children’s best interests. | Yes; permanent custody to CCDCFS affirmed. |
| Did the agency comply with RC 2151.412(G) by placing with a suitable family member? | AL argues Z.A. is a suitable relative custodian. | CCDCFS contends Z.A. was not suitable due to housing and readiness deficiencies; kinship care was not an appropriate substitute. | Placement with Z.A. not warranted; no abuse of discretion. |
| Was AL’s motion for legal custody to Z.A. properly denied as a matter of discretion? | AL asserts that legal custody by Z.A. was appropriate and in the children’s best interest. | CCDCFS and court found Z.A. unsuitable and preferred ongoing permanency with CCDCFS. | No abuse of discretion; denial upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007-Ohio-1104) (two-prong standard for termination and best-interest review)
- In re Z.T., 2007-Ohio-827 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 88009 (2007)) (one factor suffices to support permanent custody)
- In re P.C., 2008-Ohio-3458 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 90540 and 90541 (2008)) (applies C.F. framework to custody awards)
- In re Shaeffer Children, 85 Ohio App.3d 683 (3d Dist. 1993) (best-interest factors and permanency priority)
- In re M.J., 2013-Ohio-5440 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100071 (2013)) (clear-and-convincing evidence standard for permanent custody)