In re S.C.
2018 Ohio 2523
Oh. Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahog...2018Background
- Mother (A.L.) and Father pled guilty in 2017 to multiple sexual offenses; all three children were named victims; both parents sentenced to 10 years and classified as Tier III sex offenders.
- CCDCFS removed the children in Oct 2015 due to sexualized behaviors among the children, concerns about parental failure to protect, hygiene, and basic needs; temporary custody granted and children adjudicated abused/neglected.
- Children were placed separately (two in foster homes, one in residential treatment) and received ongoing specialized therapy; reunification with parents was impossible due to incarceration.
- Paternal grandmother (C.C.) and great-aunt (E.K.) expressed interest in legal custody; C.C. intervened and sought legal custody; agency investigated relatives but had concerns about family history of sexual abuse and C.C.’s ability to protect the children.
- CCDCFS moved for permanent custody (filed Sept 2016); the guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody to the agency; trial court granted permanent custody in Dec 2017, denying legal custody to relatives.
- Mother appealed, arguing (1) trial court abused discretion by awarding permanent custody instead of legal custody to relatives, (2) agency failed to adequately consider relatives and place children with them, and (3) agency failed to make reasonable efforts to prevent removal; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (CCDCFS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by awarding permanent custody to CCDCFS rather than granting legal custody to relatives | Trial court should have placed children with paternal grandmother (C.C.) or great-aunt (E.K.) instead of terminating parental rights | Permanent custody appropriate because parents cannot care for children within a reasonable time (incarceration, sex-offender classifications), children need legally secure placement and ongoing specialized treatment | Affirmed: appellate court limited mother’s challenge to termination of parental rights and found clear and convincing evidence supported permanent custody as in children’s best interest |
| Whether CCDCFS failed to adequately consider relative placement as an alternative | Agency summarily rejected C.C. and E.K. without sufficient out-of-state investigation; should have prioritized relative placement | Agency conducted investigations, had safety concerns (family history of sexual abuse, C.C.’s prior guardianship issues), and pursued out-of-town investigation ordered by court; agency determined relatives were not suitable for the children’s severe treatment needs | Affirmed: court found agency considered relatives but reasonably concluded placement with them was not in children’s best interest |
| Whether trial court’s finding that CCDCFS made reasonable efforts to prevent removal was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Agency did not adequately attempt reunification or seriously pursue relative placement investigations | Agency created and pursued case plans (substance abuse, psychological evaluation, housing), but parents failed to complete objectives due to incarceration; trial court recorded reasonable efforts findings despite statutory inapplicability to R.C. 2151.413 motions | Affirmed: record supported reasonable efforts finding and parents’ failure to complete case plans justified permanency move |
| Whether trial court should have extended temporary custody to allow further investigation or family therapy | Trial court could have extended temporary custody (or delayed permanent custody) to complete out-of-state investigation and provide more family counseling to prepare siblings for placement | Statutory limit bars extension beyond two years from complaint or shelter placement; at decision more than two years had passed; children’s severe therapy needs argued to counsel against disruptive moves | Affirmed: statutory prohibition on extending temporary custody beyond two years foreclosed prolonging temporary placement; evidence favored permanent custody to secure continuity of treatment |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (constitutional parental-rights standard for termination of parental rights)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (trial court is best positioned to assess witness credibility)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (R.C. 2151.419 does not apply to motions for permanent custody filed under R.C. 2151.413)
- In re Dylan C., 121 Ohio App.3d 115 (standard of review for permanent custody is clear and convincing evidence)