In re G.A.
2017 Ohio 8561
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Mother (E.A.) is biological mother of G.A. (b. 2013) and W.A. (b. 2014); Father (J.J.) is biological father of W.A. and has acted as a father to G.A.; Mother previously lost parental rights to another child for drug and mental-health issues.
- In Feb. 2015 Akron police removed G.A. and W.A. after Mother was arrested on drug charges; children were adjudicated dependent and placed in temporary custody of Summit County Children Services Board (CSB).
- Mother repeatedly failed to engage in court-ordered services: ongoing substance use, refusal of mental-health treatment, unstable housing, inconsistent contact with CSB, and continued involvement in violent relationships.
- Father served an 18-month prison term for domestic violence early in the case; after release he began supervised visitation and completed some programming, but did not complete required mental-health treatment or secure stable housing; he sought joint legal custody with Mother.
- The children had lived together in the same foster home for nearly two years, were bonded to the foster family, and the foster parents were willing to adopt; CSB found no relatives able/willing to provide a stable placement.
- CSB moved for permanent custody; the juvenile court found the statutory 12-of-22-months threshold satisfied and awarded permanent custody to CSB as being in the children’s best interest. Parents appealed; the Ninth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody to CSB is in children’s best interest | Mother: Court erred; parents could provide stable home and sought shared legal custody | CSB: Parents failed to remedy issues; foster placement provides stability | Affirmed: best-interest factors favor permanent custody to CSB |
| Whether father’s rights termination lacked clear-and-convincing evidence / was against manifest weight | Father: He complied with case plan (post-incarceration) and had appropriate visits; permanent custody unsupported | CSB: Father’s compliance was limited, much post-dated the permanent-custody motion; risk remained due to Mother and lack of housing | Affirmed: evidence supports finding father unprepared to provide legally secure, permanent placement |
| Whether parental compliance with case plan is dispositive | Parents: Compliance (esp. Father) shows fitness | CSB: Compliance is relevant but not dispositive; progress insufficient | Court: Compliance relevant but not controlling; overall best-interest analysis controls |
| Whether trial court improperly considered domestic-violence counseling not in case plan | Father: Court erred to weigh failure to get DV counseling not required by plan | CSB: Court may consider history of violence when assessing best interest | Court: Proper to consider history and parents’ lack of tools to stop cycle of violence when assessing best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (1996) (permanent-custody test requires clear and convincing proof of statutory prongs and best-interest determination)