In re S.B.
2014 Ohio 4710
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Greene County Children Services (CSB) obtained temporary custody of brothers R.B. (b. 2008) and S.B. (b. 2005) after their maternal grandmother (J.B.) could no longer care for them following a stroke and concerns about Mother’s long history of substance abuse, mental-health issues, instability and the 2010 abusive injuries to R.B.
- The children had previously lived primarily with J.B.; Mother had intermittent custody but long-standing problems with housing, treatment compliance, arrests and incarceration from 2009–2013.
- CSB removed the boys in April–May 2013, placed them together in foster care, offered reunification services and sought permanent custody in October 2013 after repeated failures by Mother to engage meaningfully in recommended services or maintain stability.
- At the April 1, 2014 hearing, testimony and reports (caseworkers, counselor, CASA) described the children doing well in foster care, bonded to each other and preferring to live with J.B.; fathers were effectively unavailable/abandoned the children.
- The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the children could not be placed with Mother or either father within a reasonable time, (2) the fathers had abandoned the children, and (3) awarding CSB permanent custody was in the children’s best interest. The court’s decision was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (CSB) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether children could be placed with Mother or fathers within a reasonable time and whether permanent custody was in the children’s best interest | Mother: court used wrong "start date" and overstated past agency involvement; she had made progress and was seeking housing/employment and treatment, so reunification was reasonable | CSB: Mother repeatedly failed to remedy substance abuse, mental-health and housing problems despite case planning; fathers were unavailable/abandoned; children need legally secure permanence | Held: Court’s findings supported by clear and convincing evidence; children cannot be placed with parents within a reasonable time and permanent custody to CSB is in their best interest |
| Whether the court should discount CASA’s recommendation for noncompliance with Sup.R. 48 | Mother: CASA (GAL) did not comply with Sup.R.48(D) (e.g., did not discuss permanent custody with children or interview them separately) so recommendation is unreliable | CSB: Sup.R.48 is administrative; compliance is discretionary matter for trial court; CASA made reasonable efforts and any deviations were justifiable given children’s ages and circumstances | Held: Trial court acted within discretion to consider CASA’s report; alleged noncompliance did not invalidate GAL’s recommendation |
| Whether the court erred by not appointing independent counsel for the children when CASA’s recommendation conflicted with children’s wishes | Mother: CASA’s recommendation conflicted with the children’s expressed wish to live with their grandmother, so the court should have appointed counsel for the children | CSB: The grandmother placement was impossible due to her health; appointing counsel to press a futile alternative would not change outcome; no prejudice shown | Held: No reversible error; appointment would have been futile and mother failed to show prejudice |
| Whether fathers abandoned the children and whether CSB made reasonable efforts to contact them | Mother: Agency did not make adequate efforts to engage fathers (argued particularly as to G.M.B.) | CSB: Caseworkers attempted mail, phone calls, home visits and other inquiries; fathers either did not respond or were unable/unwilling to care for children | Held: Court reasonably found fathers abandoned children and that agency’s efforts were adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (2006) (no single statutory best-interest factor is dispositive in permanent-custody analysis)
- In re Williams, 101 Ohio St.3d 398 (2004) (child is a party entitled to counsel when a conflict arises between child’s wishes and GAL recommendation in termination proceedings)
- In re Dylan C., 121 Ohio App.3d 115 (1997) (clear-and-convincing standard defined for juvenile custody findings)