In re J.H.
2013 Ohio 1293
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- JFS moved for permanent custody of two-year-old J.H. and the court granted emergency custody to JFS in July 2010.
- Adjudication found J.H. dependent; temporary custody remained with JFS, fostered since 2010.
- Case plan targeted Amber’s health, housing, and parenting; Eva joined for monthly home visits.
- Psychological evaluation described Amber as severely mentally ill and emotionally unstable; Lanny shown poor judgment and susceptibility to Amber.
- Visitation and housing issues persisted; repeated domestic-violence incidents and unstable housing hampered reunification.
- Court ultimately granted permanent custody to JFS and denied Eva’s custody motion; Amber appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best-interest factors discussed adequately | Hughley argues all five factors not fully discussed | Court contends it discussed relevant factors; overall analysis sufficient | Assignments overruled; factors adequately considered |
| Need for legally secure placement addressed | Hughley claims court ignored need for durable placement | Court found no feasible placement with Amber/Lanny | Court properly addressed legally secure placement (D)(1)(d) |
| Fifth factor discussion of E(7)-(11) missing | Hughley asserts court failed to apply E(7)-(11) | Court noted applicable E(7)-(11) in judgment | Not error; factor discussed elsewhere in the judgment |
| Reasonable efforts to reunify | JFS failed to make reasonable reunification efforts | Record shows ongoing efforts including counseling, visits, and referrals | Reasonable efforts found for avoidance of continued removal |
| Manifest weight re Lanny’s compliance | Court ignored substantial case-plan progress by Lanny | Court credited limited progress and risks from continued relationship with Amber | Finding supported; substantial compliance alone not enough |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (Ohio 2006) (discusses best-interest-factor evaluation)
- In re Calvert Children, 2005-Ohio-5653 (Ohio App.3d 2005) (substantial compliance not enough for custody; focus on remedies)
- In re Goff, 2004-Ohio-7235 (11th Dist. 2004) (placement analysis and best interests)
- In re D.H., 2007-Ohio-3337 (11th Dist. 2007) (clear-and-convincing standard; weight of evidence)