In re M.W.
2011 Ohio 6444
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Agency filed Feb 2009 alleging neglect of M.W. and sibling; sought protective supervision for the agency.
- M.W. born Nov 2008; mother tested positive for PCP; children removed June 2009.
- Initial orders placed M.W. in emergency temporary care; father agreed to temporary custody.
- May 2010 agency sought permanent custody; mother sought custody to maternal grandmother.
- March 2011 hearing: under RC 2151.414(E) both parents stipulated they could not gain custody within a reasonable time; custody to Grandmother contested by agency and father.
- Guardian ad litem and foster mother testified; Grandmother’s home and health were criticized; court granted permanent custody to agency after weighing best-interest factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had to grant custody to Grandmother as a relative. | Father argues Grandmother should be preferred per RC 2151.412(G). | Agency contends relative priority is not mandatory for custody determinations; best interest controls. | Not mandatory; court allowed best-interest custody decision to favor agency. |
| Whether there was clear and convincing evidence supporting permanent custody. | Father contends lack of sufficient evidence to show best interest for permanent custody. | Agency argues evidence showed Grandmother unfit due to health, housing, and past parental issues; foster bond with M.W. favored permanent custody. | Yes; substantial, competent evidence supported the best-interest determination for permanent custody. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Jaron Patterson, 2010-Ohio-766 (Ohio App. Dist.) (relatives do not have same rights as natural parents; no automatic preference in custody)
- In re A.V., 2006-Ohio-3149 (Franklin App.) (case law on relative preference in custody)
- In re Dyal, 2001-Ohio-2383 (Hocking App.) (relatives not guaranteed custody; best interests govern)
- In re Rollinson, 1998-Ohio- (Stark App.) (case plan factors; non-mandatory relative preference)
- In re Hiatt, 1993-Ohio App.3d 716 (Ohio App.) (discussion of standards in custody determinations)
- In re Dixon, 1991-Ohio-021 (Lucas App.) (modification of custody and relevant standards)
- In re B.D., 2008-Ohio-6273 (Ross App.) (assessment of case plans vs. custody)
- In re Kierra D., 2004-Ohio-277 (Lucas App.) (relatives and custody considerations)
- In re Harris, 2000-Ohio-76631 (Cuyahoga App.) (prior Juvenile Court involvement as a factor)
- Moore, 2000-Ohio-76942 (Cuyahoga App.) (one factor may support permanent custody)