In re G.W., 2014 Ohio 2579

G.W., born November 2011, was alleged neglected and dependent in a November 29, 2011 JFS filing.
Home conditions at birth included lack of utilities, no car seat, crib/bassinette, and limited supplies; appellant tested positive for opiates at birth.
Grandmother was fined in June 2011 for a utility ordinance violation; Hamilton Health Department had concerns about the dwelling.
Appellant agreed on February 6, 2012 that G.W. was dependent; a case plan was adopted requiring substance abuse and psychological assessments, parenting class, mental health services, and home utilities restoration.
Agency moved for permanent custody on April 16, 2013; a magistrate granted permanent custody to the agency; trial court overruled objections on December 2, 2013.
Appellant contends her trial counsel was ineffective for not filing a motion for legal custody for the Furhmans (non-relatives) as an alternative to permanent custody; the court later found no reasonable probability such a motion would have been granted and found no prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to file a motion for legal custody for the Furhmans?	Gmoser argues Furhmans deserved legal custody consideration.	Gmoser contends no reasonable probability of success and no prejudice.	No reversible error; no prejudice established.
Was permanent custody appropriate under RC 2151.414 and best-interest factors given need for a legally secure placement?	Gmoser argues alternative placements should have been considered.	Court properly weighed best-interest and placement factors.	Permanent custody to agency affirmed.

In re E.B., 2010-Ohio-1122 (12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2009-10-139, CA2009-11-146) (best-interest and placement concerns in permanent custody decisions)
In re Spillman, 2003-Ohio-713 (12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2002-06-028) (Strickland standard governs ineffective-assistance claims in custody proceedings)