In re S.H.
2013 Ohio 3708
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Ten-year-old S.H., an Amish child, was diagnosed with T-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma; doctors recommended a multi-phase chemotherapy regimen with an ~85% chance of five-year survival if followed.
- After induction and one week of consolidation, S.H. and her parents objected to continued chemotherapy due to severe side effects and long-term risks; parents chose alternative/natural treatments.
- An attorney/registered nurse, Maria Schimer, filed for appointment as a limited guardian for S.H. to consent to medical treatment; Akron Children’s Hospital supported seeking a guardian to resume chemotherapy.
- The probate court held hearings, ordered medical evaluations, appointed a guardian ad litem and an expert, and conducted an in camera interview of S.H.; investigators and the guardian ad litem recommended resuming chemotherapy.
- The probate court denied Schimer’s application, reasoning a guardianship cannot be imposed absent parental unsuitability; Schimer appealed and obtained an injunction requiring resumption of treatment pending appeal.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the probate court applied the wrong legal standard by requiring a finding of parental unsuitability before considering whether appointment of a guardian would promote the child’s interests under R.C. 2111.06.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Schimer) | Defendant's Argument (Parents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appointment of a limited guardian under R.C. 2111.06 requires a prior finding that parents are unsuitable | Schimer: R.C. 2111.06 permits appointment if the ward's interests will be promoted; no statutory prerequisite of parental unsuitability for that ground | Parents: Nonparent cannot obtain custody/decision-making absent a finding of parental unsuitability; parental rights are fundamental | Reversed: Trial court erred. Under R.C. 2111.06 the court may appoint a guardian if the child’s interests will be promoted without first finding parental unsuitability; remand to determine promotion-of-interests question |
Key Cases Cited
- Hockstock v. Hockstock, 98 Ohio St.3d 238 (2002) (discussing parental unsuitability requirement in custody disputes between parent and nonparent)
- In re Guardianship of Stein, 105 Ohio St.3d 30 (2004) (affirming limitations on awarding custody/guardianship to nonparents absent parental unsuitability in certain contexts)
- Dorrian v. Scioto Conservancy Dist., 27 Ohio St.2d 102 (1971) (statutory construction: distinguishing mandatory "shall" vs. permissive "may")
- Provident Bank v. Wood, 36 Ohio St.2d 101 (1973) (court must give effect to clear statutory language and not insert or delete words)