In re J.B.
2013 Ohio 1706
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Two granddaughters (Granddaughter-1, S.B.’s child; Granddaughter-2, R.B.’s child) were removed from home and placed in CCDCFS custody in early 2009; both have remained in foster care together since 2009.
- CCDCFS filed motions for permanent custody in 2010–2011; trial focused on whether permanent custody to the agency was in the best interests of both children.
- Great-grandmother Sanetta and others sought legal custody; GAL recommended against permanent custody for both children.
- The trial court granted permanent custody to CCDCFS in June 2012 after reviewing RC 2151.414 and best-interest factors; grandmother appealed.
- The appellate court held the agency’s permanent-custody rulings were supported by clear and convincing evidence and affirmed; a partial dissent argued for legal custody to relatives instead of permanent custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First-prong factor present for each child | A.C. argues reunification was possible and first prong not satisfied | Agency argued 12-of-22 months satisfied due to custody duration | Trial court properly found 12/22 months met for both children |
| Best interest evaluation for Granddaughter-1 | Reunification and family placement should be preferred | Best interests favored stability with foster family | Permanent custody to agency affirmed for Granddaughter-1 |
| Best interest evaluation for Granddaughter-2 | Mother’s maturation and family support favored custody to relatives | Agency’s foster-guardian placement provided stability | Permanent custody to agency affirmed for Granddaughter-2 |
| Reliance on Guardian Ad Litem recommendation | GAL recommendation should control or heavily weigh | Court may consider but not be bound by GAL | Court was not bound to follow GAL; mother's rights terminated in best interest analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (Ohio 1997) (parental rights termination and best interests standard in permanency cases)
- In re Hoffman, 97 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2002) (termination of parental rights as last resort; strict scrutiny of best interests)
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (2004) (12/22 month custody duration and best-interest framework)
- In re D.A., 2010-Ohio-5618 (8th Dist. 2010) (application of RC 2151.414(B)(1) and best-interests analysis)