2013 Ohio 2669
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- L.M. (born 2008) was living with Mother prior to removal and has no established father.
- A complaint filed August 22, 2011 alleged L.M. was neglected and dependent after Mother left her with a friend for several days and possibly weeks.
- Police observed possible intoxication and a drug-house home; friend lacked capable relatives to care for L.M.; CSB became involved.
- At adjudication, the magistrate found the friend inappropriate and the court found L.M. neglected and dependent, placing her in temporary agency custody with an agency case plan addressing housing, substance abuse, and mental health.
- CSB sought a bypass of reasonable-efforts due to Mother’s prior involuntary termination of rights concerning a sibling; the bypass was granted.
- On June 18, 2012, CSB moved for permanent custody; the trial court granted permanent custody to CSB, and Mother appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First prong of permanent custody satisfied by E(11). | Mother argues no RC 2151.414(E) factor supports placement cannot/should not be with a parent. | CSB asserts E(11) shows involuntary termination of a sibling’s rights, preventing placement with Mother. | Yes; weight supports E(11), satisfying the first prong. |
| Best interest supports permanent custody; GAL and counsel issues. | Mother argues GAL couldn’t convey L.M.’s wishes; minor lacked independent counsel. | GAL’s testimony adequately reflected child’s best interests; no need for separate counsel. | Permanent custody affirmed; GAL adequate and no requirement for independent counsel for L.M. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (1996) (established two-prong permanent custody standard; clear and convincing evidence required for both prongs)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (guardian ad litem may express child’s best interests; court may rely on GAL testimony)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (2006) (young child’s wishes may be stated via guardian ad litem; court discretion in reliance on GAL)
- In re R.G., 9th Dist. Nos. 24834 & 24850, 2009-Ohio-6284 (2009) (best-interest factors; interaction, wishes, and custodial history weighed collectively)
- In re Williams, 101 Ohio St.3d 398 (2004) (reiteration of when child’s wishes may be considered; need for consistency in expression of wishes)