In re J.A.W.
2013 Ohio 2614
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- J.A.W. was born March 5, 2010; cocaine found at birth leading to abuse/dependent finding by TCCSB (-trial court ultimately terminated parental rights).
- Mother Brittany Watson signed voluntary placement and was deemed to have abandoned the child; guardian ad litem appointed.
- Paternity established, appellant Jeffrey Wells identified as biological father.
- TCCSB sought permanent custody; initial temporary custody with PSO; J.A.W. placed with Wells under PSO, then returned to agency custody due to Wells’ incarceration and noncompliance.
- Drakes ( Wells’ sister’s family) were briefly approved as placements, but disrupted by Wells’ conduct and noncompliance; custody reverted to TCCSB.
- November 1, 2012 dispositional hearing; magistrate recommended termination of Wells’ parental rights; trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision after objections were overruled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supports permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) and (D). | Wells argues insufficiency; GAL report incomplete. | Agency contends best interest supported by bond with Drakes and J.A.W.’s stability. | Yes; clear and convincing evidence supports best interests and permanent custody to TCCSB. |
| Whether the trial court erred by not allowing Wells to proceed pro se. | Reed/ Wells claims per se reversible error. | Court properly denied without prejudicing due to lack of good cause and representation remained. | No plain error; court properly continued with counsel present. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Swingle, 2008-Ohio-3314 (5th Dist. 2008) (right to counsel in termination proceedings when indigent; withdrawal with court approval)
- Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71 (1988) (best interests control at disposition; parent’s rights not absolute)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (1979) (parental interests subordinated to child’s best interests)
- In re D.A., 2007-Ohio-1105 (Ohio Supreme Court 2007) (exhaustive best-interest considerations in custody)
- In re J.H., 2013-Ohio-1293 (11th Dist. 2013) (appellate standard: review of trial court’s determination under clear and convincing evidence)
- In re M.J., 2011-Ohio-2714 (11th Dist. 2011) (Fourteenth Amendment protections in termination proceedings)
- Allen v. Allen, 2010-Ohio-475 (11th Dist. 2010) (rules of superintendence do not govern reversal as law)
- State v. Singer, 1977 (Ohio Supreme Court 1977) (purpose of superintendence rules; expedited disposition)