In re S.M.
2014 Ohio 2961
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Mother A.G. voluntarily placed her son S.M. with Highland County Children Services (HCCS) in June 2012; the juvenile court adjudicated S.M. dependent and placed him in HCCS temporary custody on September 5, 2012.
- HCCS case plan required A.G. to complete mental-health treatment, maintain stable housing and employment for six months, and comply with probation; her boyfriend J.J. had parallel requirements.
- The child has lived continuously with the same foster family since removal and is bonded to them; foster parents are willing to adopt.
- HCCS moved for permanent custody in December 2013, asserting S.M. had been in agency custody for at least 12 of the prior 22 months and that reunification was unlikely.
- At the permanent-custody hearing, evidence showed A.G. had intermittent case-plan compliance (missed counseling, recent housing, limited employment), attended 54 of 83 offered visits, and the guardian ad litem recommended granting permanent custody but did not interview the child.
- The juvenile court found R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) satisfied (12+ months in agency custody), concluded it was in S.M.’s best interest to award HCCS permanent custody, and entered judgment accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (A.G.) | Defendant's Argument (HCCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear-and-convincing evidence supported awarding HCCS permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414(D) | A.G. argued she largely remedied removal conditions and the best-interest finding was unsupported | HCCS argued child had been in custody 12+ months, mother failed to complete case plan, foster placement is stable and adoption-ready | Affirmed: Court upheld permanent custody; clear-and-convincing evidence supported best-interest finding based on bonding, custodial history, failure to secure stable housing/income, and need for legally secure placement |
| Whether trial court erred by failing to consider the child’s wishes under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(b) | A.G. argued the court failed to determine/consider S.M.’s wishes, requiring reversal | HCCS noted guardian ad litem recommended custody; court had discretion to consider child or GAL and other factors outweighed wishes | No reversible error: court’s omission was error but not plain error—child’s wishes wouldn’t have altered outcome given other factors |
| Whether trial court misapplied R.C. 2151.414(E) (factors for returnability) | A.G. claimed the court failed to analyze R.C. 2151.414(E) best-interest factors properly | HCCS argued R.C. 2151.414(E) addresses returnability, not the best-interest list; (B)(1)(d) applied making (a)/(E) findings unnecessary | Court: R.C. 2151.414(E) governs returnability; best-interest factors are in R.C. 2151.414(D); because (B)(1)(d) applied, any error on (a)/(E) was harmless |
| Preservation/plain-error review of GAL/child-wishes issue | A.G. contended failure to interview child required reversal | HCCS noted A.G. did not object at trial or request in-camera interview; review limited to plain-error standard | Held: Issue was not preserved; under plain-error review the omission did not affect outcome and was not plain error |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (recognition of parental liberty interest in custody)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (parental rights are not absolute)
- In re D.A., 113 Ohio St.3d 88 (standards for termination and parental rights)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (best-interest factors and GAL/child-wishes guidance)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (no single best-interest factor is dispositive)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (manifest-weight standard for reviewing factual findings)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of clear-and-convincing evidence)
- Trickey v. Trickey, 158 Ohio St. 9 (trial-court discretion and advantage in observing parties)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (deference to trial court in custody/demeanor evaluations)