2019 Ohio 2384
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- K.S., born November 29, 2015, was removed from mother’s care in October 2017 after parents’ drug use and related criminal matters; WCCS placed the child in foster-to-adopt care and developed a reunification case plan for mother.
- Mother (a minor at removal) had a history of positive drug tests, incomplete mental-health assessment, unstable housing and employment, missed or late visitations after leaving agency custody, and was later arrested in Florida. Father is incarcerated long-term for offenses involving Mother.
- WCCS moved for permanent custody on October 24, 2018; the guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody to the agency.
- On the day of the permanent-custody hearing (January 7, 2019), paternal grandfather filed a last‑minute motion to intervene and for legal custody; he had never met the child and had not pursued involvement during the case.
- The juvenile court granted WCCS permanent custody, denied the grandfather’s legal‑custody motion, finding parents had not remedied conditions and child needed legally secure placement; the grandfather and mother appealed (mother’s counsel filed an Anders brief).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Should paternal grandfather be awarded legal custody? | Grandfather: award custody is in child’s best interest; he is willing/able and has resources. | WCCS: motion filed too late; no prior contact/relationship; no home-study or background checks completed; child bonded to foster family. | Denied — court did not abuse discretion; no relationship, late filing, and child’s need for immediate legally secure placement favored agency. |
| 2) Should WCCS be granted permanent custody? | WCCS/GAL: parents failed case plan, mother relapsed and was incarcerated, father incarcerated long-term; permanent custody is in child’s best interest. | Mother: (on appeal) challenged proceedings (counsel filed Anders brief indicating no non-frivolous issues). | Granted — juvenile court found clear and convincing evidence permanent custody appropriate; appellate court affirmed. |
| 3) Is the agency at fault for not contacting grandfather earlier as a relative placement? | Grandfather: agency should have identified/ contacted him as alternative placement. | WCCS: agency has no statutory duty to locate relatives; parents did not identify grandfather as placement and mother withheld his contact info. | Held: Agency not at fault; relatives are not presumptive placements and parents did not provide grandfather’s information. |
| 4) Standard of review for custody/denial of intervention | Grandfather/Mother: factual sufficiency/manifest weight and legal error claims. | WCCS: juvenile court’s custody determination reviewed for abuse of discretion; grandfather’s custody claim subject to best-interest preponderance standard. | Held: Abuse-of-discretion standard applied; no abuse found; best-interest analysis supported trial court. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Schmidt, 25 Ohio St.3d 331 (Ohio 1986) (grandparent does not have presumptive legal right of association sufficient to force custody/visitation).
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard articulated for appellate review).
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure for appellate counsel to move to withdraw when appeal is frivolous).