2016 Ohio 2670
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2013 LCCS filed a complaint after J.B. (born 2001) reported her father, Harold, sexually abused her; earlier substantiated referral from ~2011 existed. Logan County juvenile court adjudicated J.B. dependent after Harold stipulated to dependency (he denied the abuse). Temporary legal custody was placed with paternal uncle Joseph and his partner Julie; a no-contact order was entered against Harold.
- Case transferred to Allen County where Joseph & Julie continued as temporary legal custodians; Allen County Children Services Board (ACCSB) provided protective supervision and a case plan for reunification.
- Harold completed some case-plan tasks (parenting classes; psycho-sexual evaluation limited by his cognitive issues and pending criminal investigation) but repeatedly violated the no-contact order (approaching J.B. at bus stops, photographing her) and denied the abuse.
- Multiple witnesses (caseworker, GAL, Joseph, Julie, J.B.’s mother) testified J.B. was bonded with Joseph/Julie, had improved while in their care, and feared contact with Harold; GAL recommended legal custody to Joseph/Julie.
- Magistrate granted ACCSB’s motion to convert temporary custody to legal custody and terminate supervision; trial court independently reviewed and overruled Harold’s objections, then entered final judgment granting legal custody to Joseph and Julie. Harold appealed; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Harold) | Defendant's Argument (ACCSB / Joseph & Julie / Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether awarding legal custody to Joseph & Julie was in child’s best interest | Trial court erred; Harold complied with case plan, sexual-abuse allegations unproven, court relied unduly on child's wishes | J.B. is bonded with custodians, fears Harold; substantiated concerns (marijuana exposure, prior indications), Harold violated no-contact order, custodians meet child’s needs | Court affirmed: legal custody to Joseph & Julie was in J.B.’s best interest |
| Whether ACCSB made reasonable efforts to reunify child with Harold | Agency’s efforts were insufficient, too brief, and gave little chance of reunification | ACCSB provided parenting classes, counseling referrals, psycho-sexual evaluation; efforts reasonable but reunification prevented by Harold’s conduct and remaining safety concerns | Court affirmed: ACCSB made reasonable efforts under R.C. 2151.419 |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.R., 108 Ohio St.3d 369 (Ohio 2006) (best-interest standard and focus for dispositional custody decisions)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
- In re Nice, 141 Ohio App.3d 445 (Ohio App. 2001) (legal custody determinations reviewed under preponderance-of-evidence standard)