In re G.G., 2013 Ohio 3991

G.G., born ~1995, was adjudicated neglected in 2004; protective supervision and repeated case plans were implemented to reunify him with his mother, Tiffany Dellapenna-Moore.
After partial reunification in 2006, the child was removed again in 2008 because Appellant repeatedly permitted contact with an abusive husband (contrary to court orders), had unstable housing, and G.G. exhibited bruising and severe behavioral problems.
From 2008–2011 CCDJFS provided services and amended the case plan repeatedly; G.G. had inpatient treatment (New Horizon) for violent behavior and was adjudicated delinquent for assault and related offenses.
Appellant had sporadic visitation/participation, multiple domestic-violence arrests, documented mental-health issues, inconsistent counseling attendance, and misuse of agency benefits (gasoline card); CCDJFS concluded contact with Appellant worsened G.G.’s behavior.
CCDJFS moved for permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). After a full hearing (Oct. 2011), the juvenile court granted permanent custody to CCDJFS (Jan. 25, 2012). Appellant appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CCDJFS made reasonable efforts to reunify	CCDJFS: agency made repeated, documented efforts and tailored case plans; reunification thwarted by Appellant’s conduct	Appellant: agency failed to provide adequate help (e.g., transportation, counseling) and thus did not make reasonable efforts	Court: reasonable-efforts determinations had been made during the case and, in any event, record shows CCDJFS made reasonable efforts; not reversible error
Whether granting permanent custody was against the manifest weight of the evidence	CCDJFS: clear-and-convincing evidence showed best interest favored permanent custody (child’s improvement without contact; failed reunification)	Appellant: contested factual findings (counseling participation, drug use, visitation) and argued the trial court misapplied best-interest factors	Court: trial court’s findings are supported by competent, credible evidence; termination affirmed
Whether the trial court failed to consider statutory best-interest factors (R.C. 2151.414(D))	CCDJFS: court considered relevant factors; B(1)(d) custody motion requires only best-interest inquiry	Appellant: court overlooked required statutory factors and should have made additional E-factor findings	Court: for B(1)(d) motions the focus is best interest; trial court need not make B(1)(a)/E-factor placement findings and it considered the D factors; no reversible error

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (recognizing parents’ due-process liberty interest and requiring clear-and-convincing evidence in termination proceedings)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (defining the clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard)
In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (outlining R.C. 2151.413/2151.414 permanent-custody procedure)
In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (holding a final hearing need not separately make a reasonable-efforts finding so long as one was made earlier)
In re Jane Doe 1, 57 Ohio St.3d 135 (discussing abuse-of-discretion standard)
C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (stating judgments supported by competent, credible evidence will not be reversed)
State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (defining abuse-of-discretion review)