2021 Ohio 807
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background:
- FCCS removed J.H. and J.G. after reports that J.H. had not attended school for years, J.H. (autistic) suffered morbid obesity, mother’s home was severely cluttered, and mother made factually inaccurate reports to caseworkers.
- Psychological evaluation diagnosed mother with delusional disorder, persecutory type; she began but did not consistently continue counseling or medication management.
- The children entered FCCS custody on August 1, 2016; FCCS obtained temporary custody extensions and moved for permanent custody on June 26, 2018 (children had been in custody 12+ months of a consecutive 22-month period).
- At the May 2019 permanent-custody hearing FCCS caseworker and guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody; mother testified and disputed FCCS’s factual/credibility findings.
- Trial court granted FCCS permanent custody on August 1, 2019; mother appealed, raising three assignments: (1) award was against manifest weight of the evidence, (2) trial court abused discretion by not conducting in-camera interviews, and (3) failure to appoint independent counsel for J.G.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (FCCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether J.G. was entitled to independent counsel because GAL also served as attorney and recommended a disposition conflicting with child’s wishes | GAL’s dual role required separate counsel for J.G. | Mother lacked standing to raise claim for J.G.; no demonstrated conflict because child did not express a strong desire for reunification | No error; mother lacked standing for J.G.; even assuming standing, no conflict requiring appointment of independent counsel |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by not conducting in-camera interviews of J.H. and J.G. | Court should have personally interviewed children because they could express placement wishes | Court may rely on GAL testimony about children’s inability to express informed wishes; request arguably waived | No abuse of discretion; GAL testimony sufficed and children did not clearly articulate placement wishes |
| Whether granting permanent custody was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Mother argued bond and partial case-plan compliance weighed against permanent custody; disputed findings on reunification efforts | FCCS pointed to statutory 12-of-22 custody condition and mother’s unresolved mental-health, behavioral, and parenting deficiencies undermining safe return | Affirmed: manifest weight supports permanent custody (statutory predicate met; best-interest factors favor FCCS) |
| Whether FCCS failed to make reasonable efforts under R.C. 2151.419 | Mother argued FCCS did not make reasonable reunification efforts | FCCS (and record) showed preexisting court finding of reasonable efforts; statute not required to be relitigated at permanent-custody hearing | Not applicable at PCS hearing here; prior April 4, 2017 orders found reasonable efforts; trial court’s auxiliary finding also supported efforts |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Williams, 101 Ohio St.3d 398 (2004) (child is a party entitled to counsel; GAL may serve dual role but independent counsel required when GAL’s recommendation conflicts with child’s wishes)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (trial court may accept child’s wishes via GAL or interview; refusing in-camera interview reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (defines manifest-weight review standards)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (authoritative discussion of weight-of-evidence concept cited by Eastley)