In re J.B.
2022 Ohio 1529
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2022Background
- Jackson County JFS obtained temporary custody of J.B. (born Oct. 2018) in October 2019 after Mother was incarcerated and left the child with relatives who had drug issues; J.B. initially lived with paternal grandmother J.C. and was moved to foster care in Jan. 2020.
- Paternity testing excluded one putative father and later established C.H. as the biological father; C.H. was largely absent from the case and had criminal issues.
- Mother had ongoing substance-abuse, intermittent incarceration, incomplete case-plan compliance, and inconsistent employment/housing; supervised visits occurred but were limited by positive drug screens and other obstacles.
- The Agency moved for permanent custody on March 17, 2021; the permanent-custody hearing occurred May 5, 2021. J.C. had earlier filed a motion to intervene (denied by the juvenile court); she testified at the custody hearing.
- The juvenile court found J.B. had been in temporary custody 12+ months of a consecutive 22-month period, concluded a legally secure permanent placement could not be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the Agency, found no suitable relative placement (questioning J.C.’s credibility and noting convicted household members), and granted permanent custody.
- Mother appealed, arguing (1) the court plainly erred by denying J.C.’s motion to intervene, and (2) the permanent-custody decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Agency / Juvenile Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court erred by summarily denying J.C.’s motion to intervene | J.C. (via Mother) should have been allowed to intervene as she stood in loco parentis and could present evidence/witnesses that might change the outcome | The court previously ruled on intervention and effectively denied the later motion; J.C. testified at the hearing and the court considered her as a relative placement — Mother forfeited the issue on appeal and did not show plain error causing prejudice | Affirmed: No plain error. J.C. testified and the court considered her; Mother failed to show a reasonable probability the denial affected the custody outcome. |
| Whether the grant of permanent custody to the Agency was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Mother argued J.C. (and other relatives) could provide a least-restrictive, legally secure placement; Agency failed to investigate relatives (e.g., D.M.) and relied on stale or unverified concerns about J.C.’s household | Agency pointed to Mother’s repeated drug use, incarceration, failure to complete case plan, lack of stable housing/employment, the child’s strong bond with foster family, and safety/credibility concerns about J.C.’s household (convictions, presence of C.H.) | Affirmed: Not against manifest weight. The juvenile court’s findings (12+ months in custody, best-interest factors, need for legally secure placement, and R.C. 2151.414(E)(9) treatment refusals) were supported by clear and convincing evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Childs, 236 N.E.2d 545 (appellate forfeiture rule on unpreserved trial errors)
- State v. Rogers, 38 N.E.3d 860 (plain-error standard requires reasonable probability of prejudice)
- Jones v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 163 N.E.3d 501 (civil plain-error doctrine is used sparingly; error must affect fundamental fairness)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 679 N.E.2d 1099 (civil plain-error framework; extremely rare circumstances)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 972 N.E.2d 517 (manifest-weight standard and deference to credibility findings)
- Cross v. Ledford, 120 N.E.2d 118 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re K.H., 895 N.E.2d 809 (permanent custody requires clear and convincing proof of statutory elements)
- In re Schaefer, 857 N.E.2d 532 (court not required to find termination was the only option or that no relative existed)