In re K.S.
2017 Ohio 7383
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Child K.S., born Dec. 2013, was removed from parents in Aug. 2015 after mother left the child with relatives and was reported for significant substance use, mental-health issues, unstable housing, and unsafe behaviors; LCCS obtained interim custody and placed K.S. in foster care.
- Father R.K. established paternity in Oct. 2015; case plan required mental-health treatment, substance-abuse services, parenting instruction, stable housing/income, and domestic-violence intervention; supervised visitation was provided.
- R.K. had sporadic engagement: missed/failed drug screens (marijuana positive), inconsistent attendance at mental-health and batterer-intervention programs, and was incarcerated May–Sept. 2016 for a probation violation tied to a domestic-violence conviction.
- The child has multiple special needs (PT/OT, trauma therapy, developmental and sensory issues) requiring frequent appointments and intensive home management; foster parents provided daily, time-intensive care and the child had bonded with them.
- LCCS moved for permanent custody (May 2016). At the permanent-custody trial, testimony from the foster mother, LCCS caseworker, R.K., R.K.’s grandmother, and the GAL supported that R.K. had not remedied underlying conditions and was not prepared to meet the child’s needs; the court granted permanent custody to LCCS and terminated parental rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether child cannot be placed with parent within a reasonable time under R.C. 2151.414(E) | LCCS: R.K. failed continuously and repeatedly to remedy conditions (mental-health, substance use, instability), lacked commitment, and could not meet child’s special needs. | R.K.: needed more time; was young, had made recent reengagement efforts and would complete services if given additional time. | Held: Clear and convincing evidence supported R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), (4), and (16); child cannot be placed with R.K. within a reasonable time. |
| Whether permanent custody is in child’s best interest under R.C. 2151.414(D) | LCCS & GAL: child bonded with foster parents; foster home provides stability and meets child’s complex needs; permanent custody facilitates adoptive planning. | R.K.: argued capability to provide care with family help and willingness to comply with services. | Held: Court found granting permanent custody to LCCS is in the child’s best interest. |
| Whether GAL’s testimony/recommendation should be excluded for noncompliance with Sup.R. 48 | R.K.: GAL failed to contact/observe R.K., did not interview doctors, and thus her recommendation is inadmissible. | LCCS: GAL made practicable efforts; omissions were not prejudicial; Sup.R. 48 is guidance, not a substantive right. | Held: No plain error or abuse of discretion; GAL testimony admissible and not outcome-determinative. |
| Standard of review for permanent-custody findings | — | — | Held: Trial court’s findings must be supported by clear and convincing evidence; appellate court will not reverse as against manifest weight of evidence absent miscarriage of justice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (establishes meaning of clear and convincing evidence in civil matters)
- State v. Hill, 92 Ohio St.3d 191, 749 N.E.2d 274 (plain-error review and analysis of whether error affected substantial rights)
- State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91, 372 N.E.2d 804 (plain-error reversal standards)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (standard for manifest-weight review)