In re Ke.R.
2017 Ohio 7533
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- LCCS filed neglect/abuse complaints in 2016 after father physically abused mother and children; father later choked infant Ki.R. unconscious and was jailed.
- Appellant (mother, E.R.) had prior involvement with agencies, a no-contact order existed between father and family, but mother allowed father contact and failed to report the order to child-support agency.
- Children (K.P., Ki.R., and newborn Ke.R.) were placed in LCCS custody and foster care; foster parents want to adopt all three and provided a stable, child-safe home.
- Mother received a case plan (substance abuse, mental health, parenting, housing); she completed some evaluations but did not consistently engage in services, missed visits, failed drug tests, and had a later drug-related arrest.
- Guardian ad litem (GAL) switched mid-case; successor GAL (GAL2) investigated, filed a report recommending permanent custody, and testified at a March 2017 hearing which mother did not attend.
- Trial court awarded permanent custody to LCCS; mother appealed arguing (1) GAL2 did not meet Sup.R. 48(D) minimum standards and (2) the finding that children could not be placed with mother within a reasonable time was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of GAL2’s report/testimony (Sup.R. 48(D) compliance) | GAL2 failed to satisfy minimum Sup.R. 48(D) tasks and her evidence should be stricken | GAL2 made reasonable efforts and performed required tasks; her report and testimony were admissible | Court: GAL2 performed sufficient investigation under Sup.R. 48(D)(13); testimony and report admissible and not dispositive alone |
| Whether children "cannot be placed with parent within a reasonable time" under R.C. 2151.414(E) | Mother contends the trial court erred; she had engaged in some services and contested removal | LCCS: clear and convincing evidence supports statutory factors (E)(1),(4),(14),(16) and award is in children’s best interests | Court: Clear and convincing evidence supports findings under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1),(4),(14),(16); custody to LCCS affirmed |
| Best-interest analysis under R.C. 2151.414(D) (interaction, custodial history, need for permanence) | Mother argued award was not in children’s best interest and custodial-history factor (D)(1)(c) not met | LCCS relied on stable foster placement, siblings kept together, and children’s need for legally secure placement | Court: (D)(1)(a) and (D)(1)(d) supported award; (D)(1)(c) did not technically apply (children were not in agency custody 12 of last 22 months), but overall best-interest finding affirmed |
| Impact of mother’s absence at final hearing | Mother’s absence undermines her claim of commitment and prevented her from contesting evidence | LCCS emphasized mother was served and counsel had no explanation for absence; absence evidences lack of commitment | Court considered absence as relevant under R.C. 2151.414(E)(16) and as weighing against mother |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.B., 129 Ohio St.3d 231 (Ohio 2011) (describes GAL role and that GAL assists court in determining child’s best interest)
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (Ohio 1996) (a finding under R.C. 2151.414(E) by clear and convincing evidence is necessary to show a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (Ohio 1985) (defines the clear-and-convincing evidence standard)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1959) (source cited for the definition of clear-and-convincing evidence)