In re S.F.
2013 Ohio 508
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- S.F. was born July 31, 2010 to Y.D.; paternity not established and agency opened a case with Y.D. prior.
- S.F. placed in foster care; agency pursued case plan, and Y.D. regained custody with protective supervision in June 2011.
- In November 2011, agency filed a new dependency petition after Y.D. was jailed to begin a three-year sentence; S.F. placed in foster care again.
- Magistrate awarded permanent custody to the Agency; trial court overruled Y.D.’s objections and entered permanent custody.
- Y.D. had seven siblings previously in agency care; agency involvement spanned over a decade with ongoing services.
- At dispositional hearing, Y.D. was incarcerated; anticipated release date projected for August 2014.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonable efforts toward reunification | Y.D. contends agency failed to show reasonable efforts. | Agency argues extensive services and continued reunification efforts. | Agency made reasonable efforts to reunify. |
| Best interests supporting permanent custody | Permanent custody not in S.F.’s best interest. | Permanent custody best ensures legally secure placement and stability. | Permanent custody is in S.F.’s best interest. |
| Exploration of relative placements | Agency failed to explore relatives/friends as placement options. | Agency considered placement options and attempted contact with relatives. | Agency explored potential placements; lack of viable relatives supports custody outcome. |
| Discretion in choosing permanent custody over extension | Extend temporary custody to allow more reunification efforts. | Long-term temporary custody would not meet need for stable placement. | No abuse of discretion in choosing permanent custody. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.C., 2011-Ohio-2066 (2d Dist. Clark 2011) (burden on agency to prove best interests under 2151.414(E))
- In re H.T. & Z.T., 2011-Ohio-1285 (2d Dist. Greene 2011) (enumerated factors for placement not with parent)
- In re K.B.F., 2012-Ohio-1855 (2d Dist. Montgomery 2012) (application of 2151.414(E) factors in custody cases)
- In re Secrest, 2002-Ohio-7096 (2d Dist. Montgomery 2002) (reasonableness of reunification efforts standard)
- In re F.C., 2010-Ohio-3113 (2d Dist. Montgomery 2010) (consideration of relative placement not mandatory)