2013 Ohio 1705
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- J.B. and S.B. were removed from their homes after a January 2009 domestic-violence incident, leading CCDCFS to take emergency custody in early February 2009.
- J.B. was adjudicated neglected and dependent in June 2009 and placed in the agency’s temporary custody thereafter.
- From August 2009 onward, J.B. and S.B. shared the same foster home and remained there through the permanent custody trial.
- CCDCFS filed for permanent custody on July 10, 2010; the trial court ultimately granted permanent custody to the agency on June 4, 2012, despite other family members seeking custody.
- Appellant mother, R.B., engaged in case-plan services focusing on education, housing, emotional stability, and parenting, but progress was uneven, particularly on schooling and stable housing.
- The guardian ad litem initially recommended returning J.B. to R.B. with protective supervision, while the foster parents and advocates emphasized the child’s bond with the foster family.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 12 of 22 months in agency custody was satisfied | R.B. argues the agency failed to demonstrate a need for permanent custody. | CCDCFS contends J.B. had been in agency custody for 12 of 22 months, meeting the first prong. | Yes; J.B. was in temporary custody for more than 12 of 22 months. |
| Whether permanent custody was in J.B.'s best interest | R.B. asserts continued family placement and bonding support favors reunification. | CCDCFS argues the child’s need for a legally secure permanent placement supports permanent custody. | Yes; the record supports permanent custody to the agency as in J.B.'s best interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (Ohio 1997) (parental rights termination requires clear and convincing evidence of best interests)
- In re Gill, 2002-Ohio-3242 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 2002) (termination of parental rights is an extreme remedy and to be used as last resort)
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 2004) (12 of 22-month precedent governs permanency timing in abuse/neglect cases)
- In re T.S., 2005-Ohio-6633 (Ohio 2005) (biological relationship not controlling; focus on child’s best interest)