In re G.B.
2021 Ohio 3621
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Mother and Father had four children; G.B. (2015) and L.B. (2019) were adjudicated dependent and ultimately placed with custodians R.R. and T.R., relatives caring for the older half‑siblings.
- Initial agency involvement stemmed from parental substance abuse, domestic violence, children performing caregiving roles, and observable injuries; Mother admitted past methamphetamine and other substance use and had positive drug tests during pregnancy with L.B.
- Custodians filed for legal custody; children were placed with them and SCDJFS later sought a six‑month extension of temporary custody as to L.B.; Mother moved to return L.B. and terminate the case.
- Mother completed portions of her case plan (parenting classes, counseling, drug screens) and testified she was sober and employed, but multiple witnesses (caseworker, GAL, parenting program staff, counselor) reported ongoing concerns: dishonesty, inconsistent/erratic behavior, unresolved substance‑abuse risks, and poor supervisory capacity; Father has a traumatic brain injury and is disabled.
- The juvenile court found the GAL credible, questioned Mother’s testimony and candor, concluded the children were bonded to custodians and that custody with custodians served the children’s best interests, denied the six‑month extension, and awarded legal custody of G.B. and L.B. to R.R. and T.R.
- On appeal, the Fifth District affirmed, holding the custody award and denial of extension were supported by competent, credible evidence and declining to consider Mother’s undeveloped due‑process argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether legal custody to non‑parents was proper / against manifest weight | Mother/Father: they completed case plan, are bonded to children, so custody should return | Custodians / SCDJFS / GAL: parents remain unsuitable (substance use, dishonesty, poor supervision, Father’s TBI); custodians provide stable, loving home | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; preponderance of evidence supports best‑interest custody award to custodians |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying a six‑month extension of temporary custody for L.B. | Mother / SCDJFS (initially): progress on plan justifies extension to continue reunification efforts | Caseworker / GAL / trial court: extension not in child’s best interest; significant concerns remain and reunification within six months not reasonably likely | Affirmed: extension denial proper—not supported by clear and convincing evidence that extension met statutory criteria |
| Whether Mother’s due‑process and manifest‑weight challenges warranted reversal | Mother: trial court violated due process and decision was against manifest weight | Appellate response: mother failed to develop due‑process argument; record shows credibility determinations and factual support for decision | Affirmed: undeveloped due‑process claim forfeited; manifest‑weight challenge fails because competent, credible evidence supports judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.R., 108 Ohio St.3d 369 (2006) (juvenile adjudication of abuse/neglect/dependency can satisfy requirement for finding parental unsuitability before awarding legal custody to a nonparent)
- Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71 (1988) (trial courts have broad discretion in custody matters)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (1997) (deference to trial court credibility findings in custody cases)
- Seasons Coal v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (1984) (weight and credibility of evidence are for the trier of fact)
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (1978) (appellate review requires some competent, credible evidence supporting essential elements)
- In re Hockstock, 98 Ohio St.3d 238 (2002) (discusses findings related to parental suitability in juvenile proceedings)
- Rogers v. Hill, 124 Ohio App.3d 468 (1998) (trial court may accept or reject parts of witness testimony)