2017 Ohio 4352
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Newborns L.W. and S.W. were removed at birth on March 20, 2015; Agency obtained emergency temporary custody based on prior removals of seven siblings and positive drug tests of mother and newborns.
- Children were adjudicated dependent by magistrate; temporary custody to the Marion County Children’s Services Board was ordered and later adopted by the trial court.
- Agency moved for permanent custody on July 14, 2016; hearing held October 6, 2016; trial court granted permanent custody to the Agency and terminated parental rights of James and the mother.
- James appealed, arguing the trial court failed to properly consider the statutory best-interest factors in R.C. 2151.414(D).
- Trial court had miscalculated the custody-duration prong (but children were in Agency custody more than 12 of 22 months), and found parents failed to comply with case plan: home unrepaired, no running water, incomplete services, and minimal visitation (3 of 74 visits).
- Trial court found children bonded with foster parents; GAL recommended permanent custody; prior involuntary termination of James’s parental rights to seven siblings was noted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly considered R.C. 2151.414(D) best-interest factors before granting permanent custody | James: court failed to specifically address each R.C. 2151.414(D) factor in its entry, so record does not show proper consideration | Agency/Trial Court: factors are supported by record and evidence; court considered relevant evidence even if not recited factor-by-factor | Court affirmed: although better practice is explicit factor-by-factor findings, the record and judgment entries show the court considered the R.C. 2151.414(D) factors and its findings are supported; permanent custody affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (Ohio 1990) (parents have fundamental liberty interest in care, custody, and management of children)
- Infinite Security Solutions, L.L.C. v. Karam Properties, II, Ltd., 143 Ohio St.3d 346 (Ohio 2015) (a court speaks only through its journal entries)