2016 Ohio 3229
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- K.C. was born September 11, 2013; the Monroe County Juv. Ct. placed him in temporary custody of the Monroe County Dept. of Job & Family Services (the Agency) the next day as abused/neglected/dependent.
- Father (Brett Brunner) was DNAd as the father in Dec. 2013, admitted dependency, agreed to a case plan (mental-health, substance treatment, visits) but stopped visiting after July 29, 2014 and failed to complete treatment; he was incarcerated during the permanent-custody hearing and had prior jail time.
- Mother permanently surrendered her parental rights; the child had lived in Agency custody essentially his whole life and had bonded with foster parents.
- Paternal grandmother (Loretta Sheppard) initially sought relative placement, completed a home study and visits, but withdrew her willingness to take custody in April 2014 citing family health and reluctance; she later expressed interest again but never filed to intervene or moved for custody.
- The Agency moved for permanent custody; the juvenile court granted it on Sept. 28, 2015. Father appealed only arguing the Agency failed to pursue placement with the paternal grandmother (not contesting termination of his own rights).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Agency / Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Agency had a duty to attempt reunification with a relative who is not a party | Agency must try to reunite child with family members (paternal grandmother) even if they are not parties | Agency did consider the grandmother; no duty exists to pursue placement beyond reasonable efforts and relative withdrew and never sought custody | The court held the Agency satisfied its duties; no requirement to prioritize nonparty relatives who declined or failed to move to intervene |
| Whether the juvenile court abused discretion by failing to adequately consider placing K.C. with the grandmother | Court failed to adequately consider grandmother as placement option | Record shows grandmother was considered, completed home study, withdrew, and never filed for custody; child needed legally secure placement | Court held there was clear and convincing evidence permanent custody to the Agency was in child’s best interest and grandmother was sufficiently considered |
| Whether permanent custody was in the child's best interests under R.C. 2151.414 | Father implied relative placement would be in child’s best interest | Agency: child bonded with foster parents, father had long-term substance issues, minimal contact, incarceration, and child needed legally secure placement | Court held permanent custody to Agency was supported by clear and convincing evidence and best-interest factors favored permanency |
| Whether grandmother's lack of party status prevented consideration of placement | Father argued Agency/Court treated grandmother’s nonparty status as excusing efforts | Agency/Court: grandmother did not become a party, withdrew from consideration, and did not file for custody or intervention | Court affirmed placement determination; grandparent status alone does not create a legal right to custody or visitation without action or court order |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Smith, 77 Ohio App.3d 1 (6th Dist.) (limitations on who may complain of errors to protect nonparties)
- In re Hiatt, 86 Ohio App.3d 716 (4th Dist.) (standing and appellate review principles in juvenile cases)
- In re Schmidt, 25 Ohio St.3d 331 (Ohio 1986) (grandparents lack automatic legal rights to custody or visitation absent court action)
- In re G.N., 170 Ohio App.3d 76 (12th Dist.) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence in juvenile permanent-custody determinations)
- In re Starkey, 150 Ohio App.3d 612 (7th Dist.) (review scope for juvenile-court permanent custody rulings)