In re S.L., 2010 Ohio 6380

Background

In 2008, Crystal Lusk and her children H.L. and S.L. were removed from their home after a fire linked to Crystal’s boyfriend, who then became a threat to the family; a safety plan restricted contact with the boyfriend but the home lacked running water.
The Agency filed neglected and dependent-child complaints in Defiance County, and the trial court adjudicated H.L. and S.L. as neglected and dependent, placing the children in temporary custody of the Agency.
Crystal complied with some early case-plan objectives, moved to her own apartment, and engaged in visits, but tested positive for marijuana and faced ongoing counseling attendance issues and financial instability.
Over time, Crystal’s counseling attendance deteriorated, she failed to complete key case-plan objectives, and she relied on Roddy and other relatives for housing and support rather than achieving independent, stable housing and finances.
By late 2009 and 2010, the Agency sought permanent custody due to Crystal’s intermittent compliance, persistent housing and financial instability, and the children’s bonding with their foster parents, who were willing to adopt.
The trial court granted permanent custody to the Agency in July 2010; Crystal appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the process, and whether statutory best-interest factors were properly considered.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether permanent custody is supported by clear and convincing evidence	Lusk argues custody should not be permanently granted given inconsistent compliance.	Agency contends sustained noncompliance and risk to children warrant permanent custody.	Supported by clear and convincing evidence; best interests favor Agency
Whether the court abused its discretion by not extending temporary custody	Lusk asserts more time could show progress under medication and counseling.	Agency argues 22 months in custody and lack of demonstrated sustainable progress justify permanent custody.	No abuse; extension not required given best interests and time in care
Whether the Agency made sufficient efforts for relative placement	Jamie could have taken custody as relative placement; relative effort should be adequate.	Schaefer standard requires reasonable diligence; Jamie’s circumstances did not show readiness.	Agency’s relative-placement efforts were reasonable and adequate
Whether due process was violated by delaying counsel	Crystal contends counsel was not appointed earlier.	Record shows waiver of counsel; no demonstrated right to appointment prior to permanent-motion hearing.	No due-process violation; waiver and record support adequate representation
Whether the Agency made reasonable efforts to return the children	Agency failed to assist with employment, housing, and medications.	Agency provided extensive referrals, services, and frequent visits; efforts were reasonable under circumstances.	Agency’s efforts were reasonable and diligent

Key Cases Cited

In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (1990) (parents have a fundamental liberty interest that may be terminated with due process)
In re Leveck, 2003-Ohio-1269 (3rd Dist. 2003) (and related holdings on best-interests and permanency factors)
In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (2004) (best-interest analysis under R.C. 2151.414(D))
In re D.H., 2007-Ohio-1762 (3rd Dist. 2007) (enumerated factors for best interest must be considered)
In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (2006) (explicitly clarifies best-interest analysis under 2151.414)
In re Evans, 2001-Ohio-2302 (3rd Dist. 2001) (case-plan tools and reasonable efforts standard)
In re Predmore, 187 Ohio App.3d 100 (2010) (record of compliance and sufficiency of proceedings)
In re Brown, 1994-Ohio App.3d 337 (3rd Dist. 1994) (reasonableness of reunification efforts under R.C. 2151.419)
In re Ramsey Children, 102 Ohio App.3d 168 (1995) (counsel appointment and indigency considerations)