In re S.D.
2013 Ohio 3535
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- CCDCFS removed three minor daughters from mother A.C. after diagnoses of failure to thrive and related medical-care deficiencies; children placed in the same foster home.
- Mother admitted to/was adjudicated neglected/dependent for the children; temporary custody to CCDCFS extended over the next two years.
- CCDCFS sought permanent custody in 2012; mother moved for legal custody in favor of the maternal grandmother.
- At trial mother had completed many case-plan tasks (domestic-violence class, psychological evaluation, employment, counseling efforts) and attended most medical appointments; she was trained on some specialized medical care.
- The principal barrier to reunification was adequate housing; maternal grandmother’s two‑bedroom Section 8 home previously housed the family and witnesses later testified grandmother’s household members had moved out and she sought bunk beds and could pursue a larger unit.
- Juvenile court granted CCDCFS permanent custody; the appellate majority reversed and remanded, finding inadequate exploration of maternal grandmother placement and insufficient clear-and-convincing proof that permanent custody was in the children’s best interests. Judge Rocco dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (A.C.) | Defendant's Argument (CCDCFS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear-and-convincing evidence supports permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414 | Mother: she substantially complied with case plan, addressed medical-care training, maintained visitation and employment; housing and counseling issues were partly due to service-provider turnover; maternal grandmother is a viable placement | Agency: children have been in agency custody >12 months; mother lacks stable housing, consistent income, and full completion of counseling/training; children need legally secure placement | Reversed and remanded — appellate court: record lacks clear-and-convincing proof permanent custody is in children’s best interest because alternative relative placement was not adequately explored |
| Whether trial court erred by denying legal custody to maternal grandmother | Mother: grandmother’s home can accommodate children now; agency did not complete a home study and could assist with bunk beds or Section 8 adjustment | Agency: grandmother lacks sufficient financial resources; earlier household composition made home unsuitable | Appellate court overruled this assignment of error (grandmother lacks financial means), but found agency failed to adequately explore grandmother placement before terminating parental rights |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Awkal, 95 Ohio App.3d 309 (8th Dist. 1994) (best-interest determination focuses on the child)
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (Ohio 1996) (R.C. 2151.414(E) placement-with-parent analysis and timing of permanent-custody findings)