In re L.T.
2016 Ohio 5272
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Children N.G. (born 2008) and L.T. (born 2010) were removed from Mother’s home on Sept. 1, 2012 and placed in temporary custody with paternal grandmother C.S.; they were adjudicated dependent Feb. 19, 2013.
- Several safety incidents occurred while children were with C.S. (knife attack, a niece’s overdose, physical injuries to N.G. caused by another household member J.S.), and concerns about C.S.’s possible substance misuse; children were removed from C.S.’s custody Jan. 7, 2014 and placed in the Agency’s temporary custody and later foster care.
- Father (J.T.) lived with C.S. for most of his life, visited regularly, completed parenting classes and some services, obtained employment shortly before/during the hearing, but refused individual counseling and repeatedly denied Agency access to inspect his current residence.
- Agency filed for permanent custody Feb. 9, 2015; hearings occurred Mar–July 2015. Magistrate recommended granting Agency permanent custody and denying C.S.’s motion for legal custody; juvenile court adopted the magistrate’s decision and terminated Father’s parental rights as to L.T.
- Court found (1) children had been in Agency custody for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, (2) returning to Father or C.S. would not provide a legally secure permanent placement, and (3) awarding Agency permanent custody was in the children’s best interests, emphasizing safety concerns at C.S.’s home and Father’s continued residence there.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether granting Agency permanent custody was supported by clear and convincing evidence / was in children’s best interest | Father: He completed case plan; can parent L.T.; maintaining parent-child bond; preferred alternatives (reunification with Father or legal custody to C.S.) exist | Agency/Court: Safety incidents at C.S.’s home, Father lives with C.S., lacks independent stable housing/income, restricted home inspections, parenting deficits | Court: Affirmed permanent custody to Agency; best-interest factors weighed for Agency; alternatives inadequate |
| Whether R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) (“12 of 22” rule) applied when Agency filed motion | Father: Agency’s motion filed too soon because children entered Agency custody (for 12-of-22 calculation) only 60 days after removal from C.S. (Mar. 8, 2014) | Agency/Court: "Entered temporary custody" date is earlier — 60 days after initial removal from Mother’s home (Nov. 1, 2012) or adjudication date (Feb. 19, 2013) | Court: Held children satisfied 12 of 22 requirement when motion filed; overruled Father’s claim |
| Whether C.S. was entitled to legal custody instead of permanent custody to Agency | C.S.: She was a prior temporary custodian and can provide legal custody; legal custody preserves parental rights and should be preferred | Agency/Court: C.S.’s home was unsafe, substance/violence concerns, she restricted inspections, and she has motive to keep problematic household members | Court: Denied C.S.’s motion for legal custody and affirmed Agency permanent custody |
| Whether Father had standing to challenge custody of non-biological child N.G. | Father: Argues he has father-like relationship with N.G. and appeals custody of both children | Agency/Court: Father is not N.G.’s biological parent, did not seek legal custody of N.G., lacked standing to appeal regarding N.G. | Court: Held Father lacked standing to challenge custody of N.G.; appeals limited to L.T. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (state must prove parental-rights termination by clear and convincing evidence)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 2004) (juvenile court lacks authority to rely on 12-of-22 ground if requirement not met when motion filed)
- In re M.M., 122 Ohio St.3d 541 (Ohio 2009) (treatment of best-interest/placement analysis in permanent custody cases)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for abuse of discretion review in Ohio courts)