2019 Ohio 4281
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- HCJFS removed R.M.S., J.L.B., and N.A.B. in Oct. 2015; children were adjudicated dependent in Mar. 2016 (R.M.S. also adjudicated abused).
- The children remained in foster care while reunification efforts continued; visits with R.M.S. were suspended in Jan. 2017 due to psychiatric/behavioral deterioration and he was hospitalized for ~6 months.
- HCJFS moved to convert temporary custody to permanent custody in Sept. 2017; several relatives filed petitions for legal custody but most home studies were not approved.
- Trial occurred over nine days in 2018; evidence showed parental noncompliance with recommended services (therapy, drug screens), ongoing parental absence/inconsistency, and significant behavioral/mental-health needs of the children.
- The magistrate granted permanent custody to HCJFS and denied all legal-custody petitions; the juvenile court overruled objections and entered judgment granting permanent custody.
- Appeals: mother and fathers R.S. and R.B. appealed; R.S.’s appeal challenging denial of a relative’s custody was dismissed for lack of standing because the relative did not appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.S. had standing to appeal denial of a relative’s petition for legal custody | R.S.: denial affected his residual parenting rights and a grant to the relative would permit visits | Court/HCJFS: parent lacks standing to appeal denial of a relative’s custody petition when the relative did not appeal | Appeal dismissed for lack of standing (parent cannot assert injury to residual rights where relative did not appeal) |
| Whether permanent custody was supported by clear-and-convincing evidence (sufficiency/weight) | Mother & R.B.: insufficient evidence and against manifest weight; relatives would provide better placement | HCJFS: children in agency custody 12+ of 22 months; parents failed to remedy conditions; children need legally secure, structured placement | Affirmed: clear-and-convincing evidence supported permanent custody; 12-of-22 months statutory condition satisfied, dispositive |
| Whether the juvenile court considered required best-interest factors under R.C. 2151.414(D) | R.B.: trial court failed to adequately consider statutory best-interest factors | HCJFS: trial court considered required factors (magistrate’s entry and record reflect consideration) | Court found record and magistrate’s entry show required factors were considered; findings supported best-interest conclusion |
| Whether placement with a relative was preferable / whether relatives were suitable for legal custody | Mother: if not returned, children should go to family (e.g., paternal great aunt) | HCJFS: home studies did not approve relatives; several relatives had unresolved contact or CPS histories; no relative appealed denial | Court denied requests for legal custody; mother lacked standing to raise relative-appeal argument where relatives did not appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.C., 99 N.E.3d 1061 (1st Dist. 2017) (parent lacks standing to appeal an award of permanent custody and denial of a relative’s custody petition when the relative did not appeal).