In re R.H.
2011 Ohio 6749
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- LCCS filed complaints in 2006 alleging neglect and dependency due to unsanitary living conditions and lack of basic care for R.H., M.H., and A.H.
- The three children were adjudicated neglected and dependent and initially placed in emergency custody, then returned under protective supervision before the order was terminated in 2007.
- In 2009, LCCS sought temporary custody again after an incident where the children were found unsupervised and exposed to inappropriate touching; all three were placed in temporary custody.
- The case plan focused on education support, counseling for the children, and parenting education and counseling for the parents, with Father denying substance abuse issues and Mother showing limited insight.
- Father refused counseling and drug testing; his visits were terminated in January 2010 for drug use and hostility toward LCCS.
- In November 2010, LCCS moved for permanent custody; the court found 12 of 22 months in temporary custody and that permanent custody was in the children's best interests, despite some criticisms of the trial court’s articulation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s order satisfies R.C. 2151.414(E) (best interests prong). | Mother contends failure to prove cannot return within reasonable time. | Mother argues insufficient articulation of best-interest factors; Father contends need for explicit findings. | No reversible error; best interests supported by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Whether the trial court erred by not detailing each best-interest factor under R.C. 2151.414(D). | Father asserts missing explicit findings on every factor. | Mother argues substantial consideration shown; no reversible error from lack of explicit factor-by-factor findings. | Not reversible; explicit factor-by-factor findings are not required where record shows consideration. |
| Whether the trial court erred in accepting LCCS’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. | Mother challenges reliance on prior orders and assertedly unsupported findings. | LCCS argues many findings were adopted from prior orders and supported by testimony. | No error; accepted findings supported by record and prior orders with adequate evidentiary basis. |
| Whether permanent custody to LCCS was proper given the children’s wishes and guardian ad litem’s recommendation. | Mother emphasizes less favorable toward termination based on wishes. | Guardian ad litem supported permanent custody; foster care stability favored | Permanent custody affirmed; evidence supported a legally secure placement. |
| Whether the failure to appoint independent counsel for the children on appeal requires reversal. | Father raises issue belatedly; asserts denial of children’s right to counsel. | No timely objection in trial court; doctrine of waiver applies; no reversal needed. | Overruled; issue not preserved for review. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (1996) (permanent custody requires two-prong clear and convincing showing)
- In re A.W., 2010-Ohio-817 (2010) (best interests must be supported by the record; detailed factor-by-factor findings not always required)
- In re T.E., 2006-Ohio-254 (2006) (preservation of error for not raising issue in trial court where child counsel is asserted)