In re Jo.S.
2011 Ohio 6017
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Jo.S. sustained a left orbital fracture in December 2009, deemed to be abuse-related, prompting CPSU to file abuse/neglect petitions for Jo.S. and Ja.S. and seek emergency custody with paternal grandmother Garcia.
- The court placed the children with Garcia temporarily, then transferred them to CPSU’s emergency custody after ex parte and shelter hearings found risk in Garcia’s care.
- A GAL (James Kelly) was appointed; CPSU filed for permanent custody in November 2010, supported by findings that parents failed to remedy removal reasons and posed ongoing risk.
- A case plan was adopted in March 2010 with five objectives (parenting skills, mental health/substance abuse treatment, family support services, medical care, and anger management for Joseph) and a visitation plan, with initial supervised visits.
- From 2010–2011, CPSU and providers testified that Tracy completed counseling but showed no progress on dependent personality issues; Joseph repeatedly failed to complete objectives and engaged in threatening behavior
- In April 2011, the trial court granted CPSU permanent custody, finding the children could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time and that permanent custody was in their best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did CPSU make reasonable efforts to reunite the children with the parents? | Saldana and Pardo argue CPSU failed to diligently pursue reunification. | CPSU contends it conducted reasonable, diligent case planning and pursued services to rectify the removal grounds. | Yes; CPSU made reasonable and diligent reunification efforts. |
| Was the permanent custody award against the manifest weight of the evidence? | Parents contend evidence did not clearly show incapacity to provide permanent home. | CPSU asserts clear and convincing evidence supports termination and best interests. | No; the court’s decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. |
| Was permanent custody to CPSU in the children’s best interests? | Parents claim placement with CPSU is not in the children's best interests. | CPSU argues the children’s best interests are served by permanency and adoption potential with CPSU. | Yes; permanent custody was in the children’s best interests. |
| Did CPSU fail to act in good faith to reunify the parents with their children? | Parents argue CPSU did not good-faith attempt to reunify. | CPSU maintains it acted in good faith and diligently pursued case plan goals. | No; CPSU acted in good faith and with reasonable diligence. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (Ohio 1997) (parental rights are subject to the child's welfare)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (Ohio 1990) (fundamental liberty interest but not absolute)
- In re D.M., 2010-Ohio-3801 (3d Dist. 2010) (two-pronged permanent custody analysis; clear and convincing standard)
- In re Goodwin, 2008-Ohio-5399 (3d Dist. 2008) (consideration of best-interest factors in permanent custody)
- In re W.A., 2006-Ohio-5750 (10th Dist. 2006) (failure to complete case plan supports termination)
- In re Esparza, 2007-Ohio-113 (3d Dist. 2007) (proper standard for permanent custody determinations)
- In re C. C., 2010-Ohio-780 (8th Dist. 2010) (progress toward remedy of removal conditions)
- In re E.S., 2011-Ohio-2408 (8th Dist. 2011) (superior weight of evidence in best-interest analysis)
- In re Brofford, 83 Ohio App.3d 869 (1992) (significant failure to complete case plan implicates reliance on plan)
- In re Van Atta, 2005-Ohio-4182 (3d Dist. 2005) (agency need not walk parent through every step; responsibility on parent)