In re J.P.
2019 Ohio 1619
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- J.P., born Sept. 11, 2015, tested positive for opiates at birth; both parents had drug histories and were uncooperative with Franklin County Children Services (FCCS).
- FCCS obtained emergency custody, and on Dec. 16, 2015 the juvenile court adjudicated J.P. abused, neglected, and dependent and placed her in temporary custody of FCCS.
- FCCS created a case plan requiring treatment, drug screens, parenting classes, visitation, income, and stable housing; neither parent complied and both had intermittent incarceration.
- J.P. spent about one year with foster parents who were potential adoptive parents and with whom she had strong bonds; father (M.P.) identified his sister (W.P.) in 2017 as a potential placement but W.P. never filed for legal custody nor met J.P.
- FCCS moved for permanent custody under R.C. 2151.413(D)(1) after J.P. had been in temporary custody over 12 of 22 months; the magistrate and juvenile court awarded permanent custody to FCCS; M.P. appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (M.P.) | Defendant's Argument (FCCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody to FCCS was in child's best interest | Court erred; insufficient competent and credible evidence to show permanent custody was in J.P.'s best interest | Evidence of parents’ chronic substance abuse, lack of compliance, lack of contact, and child’s need for legally secure placement supported permanent custody | Affirmed—manifest weight supports finding permanent custody was in child’s best interest |
| Whether magistrate erred by refusing to consider aunt W.P.'s testimony/alternative placement | W.P. was willing to provide placement; court should have considered her as alternative to terminating parental rights | W.P. never filed a motion for legal custody, had never met J.P., and her proffered testimony was not admitted at the hearing | Affirmed—court properly refused to consider proffered out-of- hearing testimony; W.P. was not a legally secure placement absent a filed motion |
| Whether denial of continuance to allow W.P. to file for legal custody was an abuse of discretion | Denial prevented consideration of a relative placement and prejudiced father | Motion had been pending long past statutory deadlines; parties had ample time earlier to file; focus is child’s best interest | Affirmed—denial not an abuse of discretion given elapsed statutory timelines and parties’ delay |
| Whether guardian ad litem failed duties sufficiently to warrant reversal | GAL did not inspect W.P.’s home or review FCCS logs, breaching duties | Any alleged deficiencies did not prejudice father or affect outcome; W.P. never filed for custody so home inspection unnecessary | Affirmed—no demonstrated prejudice from GAL’s alleged shortcomings |
Key Cases Cited
- In re B.C., 141 Ohio St.3d 55 (Ohio 2014) (agency must follow R.C. 2151.414 procedures when seeking permanent custody)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (statutory framework for permanent-custody determinations and required findings)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (Ohio 2006) (juvenile court satisfies duty under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(d) when it considers whether legal custody to a relative could provide a legally secure placement)