In re L.W.
2017 Ohio 657
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Cuyahoga C.P. Juvenile Division terminated parental rights of C.W. (Father) and granted permanent custody of his daughters L.W. (b. 2013) and S.W. (b. 2014) to Cuyahoga County Dept. of Children & Family Services (CCDCFS); Father appealed.
- Children were adjudicated dependent and placed in CCDCFS temporary custody after concerns about parental substance abuse, domestic violence, and parenting; parents failed to complete their case plans.
- Father completed some services but tested positive for cocaine and marijuana and did not complete parenting classes or further assessments; social worker testified Father lacked housing and was not capable of caring for the children.
- Paternal grandmother S.H. (Alabama) moved for legal custody; an out-of-state investigation (OTI) by the Alabama agency allegedly disapproved her home for placement; the OTI report was not made part of the record.
- The guardian ad litem (GAL) recommended permanent custody to CCDCFS, but her report stated she was unaware of any relatives willing and able to take custody; the GAL later suggested she might consider S.H. taking all four children but deferred because S.H. sought custody only of the two younger children.
- The juvenile court relied on children’s bonding with siblings/foster family and the Alabama OTI to deny S.H.’s legal custody request and to find both prongs for permanent custody satisfied; appellate court vacated and remanded due to an incomplete record on the OTI and deficiencies in the GAL investigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (CCDCFS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in denying legal custody to paternal grandmother (S.H.) because she did not submit a signed R.C. 2151.353(A)(3) statement and because of the Alabama OTI | R. contends court improperly denied S.H. custody; OTI and lack of signed form insufficient to outweigh grandmother's willingness/ability | Agency relied on Alabama OTI and lack of required signed statement to deny legal custody; siblings bonded to foster placement | Court found Father lacks standing to directly challenge denial of grandmother's custody; nevertheless remanded because OTI not in record and the court relied on it, preventing meaningful appellate review |
| Whether evidence supported first prong of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) (parents cannot be placed within reasonable time) | Father argued the agency did not meet its burden to show he could not parent within a reasonable time | Agency pointed to Father's failure to complete case plan, positive drug tests, incomplete assessments, lack of housing | Court held record contained clear-and-convincing evidence under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) that Father failed to substantially remedy conditions, satisfying first prong |
| Whether trial court's best-interest determination (second prong) was supported by an adequate record | Father: court relied on OTI and sibling bond without admitting OTI and without adequate GAL investigation; thus decision not reviewable | Agency: best-interest factors (bonding with foster, siblings, need for legally secure placement) supported permanent custody | Court held the best-interest analysis could not be meaningfully reviewed because the Alabama OTI (relied upon by the court) was not in the record and GAL’s investigation/report needed supplementation; vacated and remanded |
| Admissibility and reliance on GAL report and out-of-state investigation testimony/exhibits | Father challenged GAL testimony/procedures and social worker's testimony about Alabama OTI and admission of unauthenticated photo/report | Agency maintained testimony and GAL report were proper and supported the court's findings | Appellate court did not resolve these evidentiary claims on the merits because the case was remanded for a new permanent custody hearing; directed GAL to amend report after adequate investigation and ordered that the OTI be part of the record on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hoffman, 97 Ohio St.3d 92 (termination of parental rights described as family-law equivalent of death penalty)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (parental right to raise a child is fundamental)
- In re Adoption of Ridenour, 61 Ohio St.3d 319 (best-interests factors and custody guidance)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (statutory best-interests analysis; no single factor controls)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)