In re K.M.D.
2012 Ohio 755
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Child, K.M.D., born October 1, 2010, addicted to opiates due to Mother's prenatal drug use; placed in Agency custody shortly after birth.
- Child has resided with foster parents R.P. and T.P. since December 2010; Mother and Father have had minimal contact with Child.
- Mother and Father’s rights to their other two children were involuntarily terminated in April 2010; Father is incarcerated on a felony drug conviction with a 2013 release date.
- Agency sought permanent custody under R.C. 2151.413; magistrate granted permanent custody on August 8, 2011; trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision on September 15, 2011.
- Father appeals asserting multiple errors, including best-interests finding, continuances for paternal grandfather placement, contempt for failing to complete a home study, relative placement considerations, reasonable-efforts findings, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Guardian ad litem recommended granting Agency’s motion for permanent custody; evidence showed Child thriving in foster care and unable to be reunified with parents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best interest determination for permanent custody | Permanent custody not in Child’s best interest. | Trial court properly found best interests supported by evidence. | Supported; not plain error; permanent custody affirmed. |
| Continued postponement to consider A.B. as placement | Court should continuance to allow investigation of A.B. as placement. | Court did not abuse discretion; continuance unnecessary. | No abuse of discretion; continuances denied. |
| Contempt for not completing home investigation of A.B. | Agency should have been held in contempt for failure to investigate A.B. | No plain error given lack of prejudice and agency’s efforts. | No plain error; contempt not warranted. |
| Placement with paternal grandfather (A.B.) | Child should have been placed with A.B. if possible. | Placement with A.B. not feasible; relative options explored; best interests favored permanent custody. | Not a proper issue for reversal; evidence supported Agency's custody decision. |
| Reasonable efforts to investigate relative placement | Agency failed to make reasonable efforts to investigate relatives, especially A.B. | Agency did make reasonable efforts; no statutory duty to place with relatives before permanent custody. | Agency acted reasonably; no merit to failure-to-investigate claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.A., 113 Ohio St.3d 88 (Ohio 2007) (clarifies best-interest and clear-and-convincing standard in permanent custody)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental rights are fundamental but subject to child welfare welfare principal)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1997) (plain-error standard and appellate review in civil cases)