In re J.B.
2013 Ohio 1703
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Consolidated appeals by S.C., the great-grandmother, from judgments granting permanent custody to CCDCFS in two separate Juv. Div. proceedings involving J.B.-1 (mother S.B.) and J.B.-2 (mother R.B.).
- J.B.-1 and J.B.-2 had been in CCDCFS custody for 12+ months of a 22-month period and were placed with a foster family for over two years.
- GAL recommended legal custody to S.C. for J.B.-1 and to S.C. for J.B.-2, but the trial court granted permanent custody to CCDCFS in each case.
- S.B. and R.B. had histories of noncompliance with case plans; S.B. had delinquency issues and unstable housing, while R.B. had prior mental health concerns and instability but showed progress.
- The court found that permanent custody to CCDCFS was in the best interests of both children and denied motions for legal custody by various relatives; S.C. separately appealed the J.B.-1 and J.B.-2 rulings.
- A dissent by L. A. Jones, Sr., would have granted legal custody to the relatives (S.C. for J.B.-1 and R.B. for J.B.-2) with protective supervision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody was in the child’s best interest | S.C. argues best interests favored legal custody to a relative | CCDCFS contends permanency and stable placement justify permanent custody | Yes, permanent custody affirmed for both children |
| Whether the court properly applied RC 2151.414(B)(1)(d) over (a) in finding no feasible placement with parents | S.C. contends feasible relative/legal placements existed | Court relied on 12-of-22 and need for legally secure placement | Court properly relied on 12-of-22 provision and denied reliance on (a) |
| Whether the trial court should have granted legal custody to S.C. (for J.B.-1) given available relative placements | S.C. would provide secure, loving custody | Agency concerns about health/criminal history prevented placement | No; not supported by clear and convincing evidence; permanent custody affirmed |
| Whether GAL recommendations were properly considered | GAL recommended legal custody to S.C. for J.B.-1 and to S.C. for J.B.-2 | Trial court weighed GAL recommendations against child’s best interest | GAL recommendations considered but court not bound; evidence supported permanency |
| Whether delay in proceedings undermined custodial history analysis | Delays were due to agency and court scheduling; not solely mother's fault | Delay weighed against parents due to noncompliance | Court did not abuse discretion; delay appropriately weighed in best interest analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (state’s permanency standards; clear and convincing evidence required for permanent custody)
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 2004) (12-of-22 provision; reunification vs. permanent custody analysis)
- In re T.S., 8th Dist. No. 92816, 2009-Ohio-5496 (Ohio 2009) (best-interest factors; permanency goals)
- In re Needom, 2008-Ohio-2196 (First Dist. 2008) (court can award custody even with relative conviction; placement limits do not bind court)