In re M.O.
2011 Ohio 2011
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- RCJFS sought permanent custody of M.O. after failure of reunification under case plan.
- Mother challenges lack of 'reasonable efforts' to place with a relative (great-aunt) before permanent custody.
- The court held there is no statutory duty to pursue relative placement before permanent custody.
- Evidence showed RCJFS did make relative-placement efforts with several relatives; some failed or refused.
- Best-interest analysis weighed factors; court did not require showing no suitable relative existed to grant custody.
- Appellate review affirmed the permanent-custody judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RCJFS must prove no suitable relative exists before permanent custody. | Mother (M.O.) contends RCJFS failed to pursue relative placement. | RCJFS had no statutory duty to make reasonable efforts for relative placement before permanent custody. | No, relative placement need not be shown as unavailable; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (2006) (weighing factors; placement availability not controlling factor)
- In re Haynes (Estate of Haynes), 25 Ohio St.3d 101 (1986) (clear and convincing standard definition)