In re G.P.
2017 Ohio 2883
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- G.P., born Jan 2014, was removed from Mother (A.P.) due to concerns about hygiene, unsafe housing, and Mother’s cognitive limitations; FCSCC obtained temporary custody and later permanent custody.
- Mother intermittently lived out of the area, had inconsistent visitation, and failed to comply with case-plan tasks (stable housing, mental-health follow-through, regular visits).
- Father initially received legal custody in March 2015 but his home proved unsafe; FCSCC regained custody Dec 2015 and placed G.P. with foster parents where he thrived. Father surrendered parental rights at the permanent-custody hearing.
- Mother requested appointed counsel in March 2016 but the record shows counsel was actually appointed in September 2016, about two months before the Nov. 7, 2016 permanent-custody trial. Mother did not request a continuance or object at trial.
- At the Nov. 2016 hearing FCSCC and the GAL recommended permanent custody; evidence showed Mother had long gaps without contact (>90 days), little bond with G.P., and no progress on the case plan. The trial court awarded FCSCC permanent custody; the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | FCSCC’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Delay in appointment of counsel | Trial court’s delay (denial on Mar 3, 2016) prejudiced Mother’s due-process and statutory rights | Mother was aware of right to counsel, failed to follow court instructions, counsel was ultimately appointed in Sept. 2016 and Mother showed no prejudice | No reversible error; claim waived for failure to object/seek continuance; no plain-error extraordinary circumstances found |
| Whether permanent custody was in child’s best interest | Mother argued FCSCC failed to make reasonable reunification efforts (transportation burden) and should have allowed more time after her return | FCSCC pointed to Mother’s long absences, failure to complete case plan, unsuitable housing, lack of bond, and foster placement stability/adoptability | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supported permanent custody (12+ months in agency custody met statutory predicate; best-interest factors favored agency) |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997) (plain-error in civil cases is disfavored and applies only in exceptional circumstances)
- In re B.C., 141 Ohio St.3d 55 (2014) (parental relationship is a protected associational right)
- State ex rel. Heller v. Miller, 61 Ohio St.2d 6 (1979) (indigent parents entitled to counsel and transcript at public expense for appeals as of right in termination proceedings)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1959) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re H.F., 120 Ohio St.3d 499 (2008) (adjudications of dependency/temporary custody are final appealable orders and generally not reconsidered in later permanent-custody appeals)