In re R.P., 2011 Ohio 5378

TCJFS filed 3/29/2010 alleging R.P. and I.S. were neglected/dependent; adjudication held 5/25/2010 with the children found dependent/neglected.
The court placed the children in foster care with the Village Network; reunification services and a case plan were adopted.
Paternal grandparents sought a home study and custody but were denied during dispositional/review proceedings.
On 2/18/2011 TCJFS moved for permanent custody; the hearings occurred 4/7 and 4/14/2011 alongside the newborn R.E.P. case.
The trial court granted permanent custody to TCJFS for R.P., I.S., and R.E.P.; father appeals.
The record shows ongoing concerns about parenting capacity, repeated issues after visits, and inconclusive long-term stabilization for the children.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was clear and convincing evidence that R.P. could not be placed with father within a reasonable time	R.P. argues father substantially complied but could not remedy core issues.	TCJFS contends reasonable efforts were made and conditions not remediable within a reasonable time.	Supported; findings that conditions were not remediable and placement with father within a reasonable time was not feasible.
Whether permanent custody to TCJFS served the children's best interests	R.P. argues relative placement could be better and best interests favor reunification.	TCJFS asserts best interests favored permanent custody given safety and stability concerns and relatives’ questioned placements.	Held in favor of TCJFS; permanent custody to agency is in the children’s best interests.

In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (1990) (parental interest in child is fundamental; standards of proof and protection apply)
In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (reasonable efforts and duties; permanent custody not precluded by failure to provide every service)
In re Schaefer, 11 Ohio St.3d 498 (2006) (weigh all relevant factors for best interests; availability of relatives not controlling)