2021 Ohio 694
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background:
- CCDCFS filed neglect complaints in Sept 2017 after concerns about domestic violence, education neglect, parental criminality, and parental mental health; children were placed in CCDCFS temporary custody following an adjudication when mother admitted the amended complaint.
- Agency developed a reunification case plan requiring domestic-violence counseling, anger management, mental-health treatment, and parenting services.
- Mother completed some services but had subsequent domestic incidents (including conduct in the children’s presence), criminal charges, a history of bipolar disorder and hospitalizations, intermittent compliance with treatment, and disruptive courtroom outbursts.
- Mother lacked stable housing for a long period and only secured a residence shortly before the permanent-custody trial; her income was limited.
- CCDCFS moved for permanent custody (filed March 2019); trial occurred Aug. 11–12, 2020; the guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody; the juvenile court granted permanent custody to CCDCFS and terminated parental rights; mother appealed.
Issues:
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | CCDCFS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether granting permanent custody was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Mother: She completed case-plan services, obtained stable housing, had therapeutic support (Dr. Livingston), and children want to live with her | Agency: Completion alone is not dispositive; mother remained unstable re: housing, mental health, criminality, and visitation; children in agency custody >12 of 22 months | Court: Affirmed. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) criterion satisfied (custody >12 of 22 months); best-interest factors support permanent custody by clear and convincing evidence; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether the GAL’s investigation/report was inadequate and required reversal or appointment of separate counsel for children | Mother: GAL failed to conduct home visit, interview relevant persons, ascertain children’s wishes, and should have sought separate counsel for children | Agency: Mother only obtained housing shortly before trial; GAL filed report and testified; mother forfeited objections by not objecting at trial; no evidence children consistently and repeatedly wanted reunification | Court: Affirmed. Mother forfeited non-constitutional challenges absent plain error; GAL’s report and testimony were adequate; no plain error in relying on GAL; no abuse in declining to appoint separate counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (standard for manifest-weight review)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (definition of abuse of discretion)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (no single best-interest factor is conclusive)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (presumption favoring the trial court/finder of fact)
- Trickey v. Trickey, 158 Ohio St. 9 (value of trial-court observation of witnesses)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (explanation of weight of the evidence concept)
- Lansdowne v. Beacon Journal Publishing Co., 32 Ohio St.3d 176 (clarification of clear-and-convincing standard)
- In re C.B., 129 Ohio St.3d 231 (role and purpose of guardian ad litem in child-custody proceedings)