In re S.D., 2012 Ohio 2299

S.D. is a minor born May 19, 2009; mother incarcerated for drug offenses.
Initial adjudication found S.D. neglected and dependent; father awarded legal custody but later actions changed due to arrests.
Both parents were later arrested for the Bradley-Crockett murder; CCDCFS sought permanent custody.
Father’s undisclosed juvenile adjudications (including aggravated murder and abuse of a corpse) came to light during investigation.
CCDCFS and GAL recommended permanent custody to CCDCFS; paternal grandmother sought legal custody.
Trial court granted permanent custody to CCDCFS on August 15, 2011, finding it in S.D.’s best interest and safety concerns with the biological family.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the permanent custody judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence.	Paternal grandmother argues evidence supports legal custody, not permanent custody.	CCDCFS asserts clear and convincing evidence supports permanent custody.	No; judgment not against manifest weight; evidence supports permanent custody.
Whether the guardian ad litem reports were admissible despite hearsay.	Grandmother contends GAL reports were improperly admitted.	CCDCFS and GAL properly admitted and relied on GAL testimony and reports.	No reversible error; admission and reliance on GAL reports within discretion.

In re Awkal, 95 Ohio App.3d 309 (Ohio App.3d 1994) (weighing factors; relative placement not controlling)
In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (2006-Ohio-5513) (statutory framework; not required to place with relative before permanent custody)
In re L.S., 2011-Ohio-3836 () (relatives not automatically favored; best interests standard applied)
In re A.D., 2005-Ohio-5441 () (grandparent suitability differs from parent suitability in custody)
In re M.B., 2011-Ohio-4645 () (evidentiary decisions in permanent custody hearings)
In re C.R., 2006-Ohio-1191 () (relatives’ placement not automatically required; court weighs factors)