In re S.S.
2011 Ohio 5697
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Appellate review of a juvenile-court permanent-custody order regarding S.S. (daughter, born 2003), D.S. (son, born 2003), and L.M. (son, born 2006).
- Children were adjudicated dependent in 2007 with protective supervision; subsequently removed in 2008 under an agreed order.
- Mother was convicted on two counts of endangering children and repeatedly used illegal drugs, leading to ongoing involvement by Children’s Services.
- A permanent-custody motion was filed March 30, 2009, nearly a year after removal, with a hearing held June 10, 2009.
- In 2010 the first appellate panel reversed on remand to consider objections; in 2011 the juvenile court again granted permanent custody to Children’s Services.
- Mother appealed arguing insufficient evidence of lack of commitment, best interests, and reasonable reunification efforts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports lack of commitment finding | S.S. argues lack of commitment not proven | Schaengold argues evidence shows failure to progress on plan | Yes; evidence-supported lack of commitment |
| Whether permanent custody is in the children's best interests | S.S. contends best interest not proven | Schaengold argues best interests favored permanence and stability | Yes; permanent custody warranted for stable, secure placement |
| Whether reasonable reunification efforts were made | S.S. claims agency failed to make timely reunification efforts | Schaengold asserts agency offered services and pursued permanency when appropriate | Yes; agency made reasonable reunification efforts |
| Whether the court properly exercised its discretion in granting permanent custody | S.S. challenges discretionary timing | Schaengold contends discretion supported by evidence | Yes; court’s discretion not arbitrary or unreasonable |
| Whether the court erred in requiring continued progress before visitation | S.S. argues visitation conditions were punitive | Schaengold maintains visitation conditioned on drug-free screens and progress | Not error; visitation conditioning and progress requirements upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.C., 2011-Ohio-2066 (Ohio App. 2d Dist. 2011) (abuse of discretion standard and clear and convincing evidence standard for permanent custody)
- In re Forrest S., 102 Ohio App.3d 338 (Ohio App. 1995) (establishes ultimate review standard for termination decisions)
- In re A.D., 2008-Ohio-2070 (Ohio App. 2008) (reunification efforts prerequisite to permanent custody under RC 2151.419(A)(1))
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 79 (2007) (requires showing reasonable reunification efforts before permanent custody)
- In re A.W., 2006-Ohio-2103 (Ohio App. 2006) (reasonable efforts to reunify and factors in best-interest analysis)
- In re S.S., 2010-Ohio-992 (Ohio App. 2010) (remand for reconsideration of objections; discussion of lack of progress and timing)
- In re Campbell, 138 Ohio App.3d 786 (Ohio App. 2000) (non-compliance with case plan as ground for termination)
- In re W.A., 2006-Ohio-5750 (Ohio App. 2006) (failure to complete case plan as grounds for termination)
- In re Bailey, Geauga App. No. 2001-G-2340 (2001) (non-compliance demonstrates lack of commitment and supports termination)