In re R.S.
2012 Ohio 2016
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- R.S. (born Feb. 4, 1998) was alleged abused/neglected/dependent in Highland County and placed under protective supervision by HCCS.
- A 9/30/2009 referral alleged mother’s illegal drug use, a Clinton County felony warrant, lack of food, and the child locked out; later visits revealed food and access, and mother failed to promptly undergo a random drug screen.
- A 10/15/2009 petition led to a 12/18/2009 adjudication that the child was dependent, with protective supervision and a case plan created for mother.
- Temporary custody was awarded to HCCS on 7/20/2010 after mother allegedly failed and/or delayed complying with drug screens and services; housing and employment concerns persisted.
- Guardian ad litem and service providers described minimal case-plan compliance by mother through 2011, with several housing changes and limited consistent visitation.
- On 11/3/2011 the trial court granted permanent custody to Highland County Children Services, finding twelve+ months in temporary custody and that permanent placement was in the child’s best interests; the child wished to remain with the agency rather than return to mother.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was clear and convincing evidence of abandonment under RC 2151.414(B)(1)(b). | R.S.'s abandonment shown by no contact April–Aug 2011. | Presumption of abandonment not adequately rebutted; however, if abandoned is not required, other grounds may suffice. | Abandonment supported, but not essential since other grounds exist. |
| Whether the best-interest factors support permanent custody. | Best interests favor permanent custody due to lack of bonding, ongoing noncompliance, and need for security. | Mother argues potential for rehabilitation and reunification under case plan. | Yes; evidence proves permanent custody serves child’s best interests. |
| Whether a non-attorney guardian ad litem cross-examined improperly and if that requires reversal. | Non-attorney GAL cross-examined; error under Sup.R. 48 grounds reversal. | Any error was harmless and did not prejudice mother. | Harmless error; no reversal required. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Perry, 2006-Ohio-6128 (2006) (deferential review; clear and convincing standard in permanent custody)
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71, 564 N.E.2d 54 (1990) (establishes standard of review for permanent custody rulings)
- In re D.A., 113 Ohio St.3d 88, 862 N.E.2d 829 (2007) (parental rights subject to child welfare best interests)
- In re R.H., 2011-Ohio-6749 (2011) (abandonment and best-interest considerations in permanent custody)
- In re W.W., 2011-Ohio-4912 (2011) (precedent on RC 2151.414(B)(1) factors and best interests)