In re K.T.
2018 Ohio 1381
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Four children (K.T.1, A.T., K.T.2, K.T.3) were subject to dependency proceedings and HCJFS custody requests; two youngest born into agency custody.
- HCJFS initially sought permanent custody of all four at various times; GAL also moved for permanent custody of three children.
- A magistrate denied permanent custody requests, granted legal custody of the three older children to their father, and remanded legal custody of K.T.3 to the mother.
- Juvenile court rejected the magistrate’s decision in full, awarded permanent custody of K.T.2 and K.T.3 to HCJFS, and remanded K.T.1 and A.T. to the mother; parents and GAL appealed.
- Appellate court found the juvenile court failed to show it considered all statutory best-interest factors (specifically R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(e)) and therefore reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court complied with Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(d) by ruling on objections to the magistrate’s decision | W.A.: juvenile court failed to specifically rule on objections, leaving appellant uncertain what was rejected | Juvenile court: its November 2017 judgment stated objections were “well‑taken” and rejected the magistrate’s decision | Court held juvenile court did rule on objections; W.A.’s assignment of error overruled |
| Whether the juvenile court considered all R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) best‑interest factors before granting permanent custody to HCJFS | Mother/GAL: court failed to consider mandatory subsection (e) factors and did not indicate on record that all statutory factors were considered | Juvenile court: listed (a)–(d) factors in opinion but omitted an explicit reference to (e) and provided no indication those (e) factors were considered | Court held trial court failed to show consideration of all required factors (including (e)); reversed and remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether other assignments of error should be addressed on appeal | Appellants argued various additional trial errors | HCJFS and others argued trial rulings were correct | Court declined to address other assignments as moot pending remand |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498, 857 N.E.2d 532 (Ohio 2006) (trial court must determine by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in child’s best interest and consider all R.C. 2151.414(D) factors)