In re G.R.
2017 Ohio 8917
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Child G.R. born July 15, 2015, tested positive for THC; Agency took custody within days and child was placed in temporary custody July 23, 2015.
- Mother (B.K.) was 18 at pregnancy; Father (K.R.) was 15; both stipulated to a dependency finding; child remained in Agency custody throughout the proceedings.
- Case plan (filed Oct. 5, 2015) required counseling, drug‐testing, parenting assessment, stable housing/employment and lawful behavior for reunification.
- Mother missed services and visitation due to repeated incarcerations (over 200 days), noncompliance with counseling and medications, and failed drug screens.
- Father missed schooling, counseling and parenting requirements, tested positive for THC repeatedly, was in juvenile detention during parts of the case, and did not complete required assessments.
- Agency moved for permanent custody Oct. 27, 2016, noting the child had been in Agency custody 12 of the previous 22 months; juvenile court awarded permanent custody to the Agency Feb. 13, 2017; parents appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were reasonable reunification efforts made? | Mother: Agency failed to make reasonable efforts and was intent on permanent custody. | Agency: Caseworker testified Agency provided services and reasonable efforts; parents were noncompliant. | Court: Agency made reasonable efforts; mother failed to comply. |
| Was the statutory 12-of-22-months finding met? | Mother/Father: did not contest the time period. | Agency: Child was in custody 12 of 22 months, meeting statutory trigger. | Court: Finding satisfied; R.C. 2151.413(D)(1) applies. |
| Was permanent custody against the manifest weight of the evidence? | Mother/Father: Needed more time to complete case plan; custody not in child’s best interest. | Agency/GAL: Parents did not complete plan; child bonded with foster parents seeking adoption; permanency needed. | Court: Not against manifest weight; clear and convincing evidence supports permanent custody. |
| Was granting permanent custody in child’s best interest? | Mother/Father: Could improve if given more time. | GAL/Agency: Child too young for expressed wishes; custodial history, parental instability, substance abuse, incomplete services favor permanency. | Court: Best-interest factors favor awarding permanent custody to the Agency. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 862 N.E.2d 816 (Ohio 2007) (agency must show reasonable reunification efforts at permanent-custody hearing)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361, 481 N.E.2d 613 (Ohio 1985) (clear-and-convincing evidence standard described)