2014 Ohio 3955
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- GCCS filed for permanent custody of three children after earlier adjudication and criminal convictions of the parents; mother and father were incarcerated following a meth lab operation in the home
- Older children R.L. and A.L.1 were adjudicated abused/neglected/dependent in 2011; A.L.2 born in 2011 remained in GCCS custody
- Mother received a four-year sentence and father five years; all three children placed in GCCS custody
- A prior appeal reversed a 2011 permanent custody grant due to lack of best-interest analysis and bond concerns
- In 2013 GCCS sought permanent custody again; case included in-camera interview with R.L. and guardian ad litem’s recommendations
- Trial court granted permanent custody to GCCS in August 2013, finding 12+ months in GCCS custody during a 22-month period and that adoption by foster families was best for the children
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was permanent custody in the children's best interest? | Father argues it wasn't | GCCS argues best interests satisfied by stability and bonding with foster families | Yes; court affirmed best-interest determination for GCCS |
| Did the twelve-month requirement under RC 2151.414(B)(1) apply and justify permanent custody? | Parents contended time via prior custody mattered | Court correctly counted 12+ months in GCCS custody | Yes; 27 months for R.L. and A.L.1, 23 months for A.L.2 met the threshold |
| Were due-process concerns about in-camera interview and visitation with parents viable? | Father claimed in-camera attendance and visitation issues violated rights | Guardians and counsel adequately protected rights; no prejudice shown | No reversible error; rights not violated under cited authorities |
| Did GCCS reasonably investigate alternate placements and was Troyer placement properly rejected? | Father argued more placements should have been explored | GCCS conducted extensive home studies and deemed Troyers non-viable | Yes; reasonable efforts supported by record |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.L., A.L., and A.L., 2012-Ohio-6049 (2d Dist. Greene 2012) (reversed prior custody ruling for lack of best-interest analysis; affirmed reasonable placement efforts)
- In re S.J., 2013-Ohio-2935 (2d Dist. Montgomery 2013) (discussed factors for best-interest analysis in permanent custody)
- In re M.O., 2014-Ohio-3060 (2d Dist. Montgomery 2014) (limits on extending temporary custody and framework for permanency)