In re S.U.
2014 Ohio 5166
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Clermont County Children's Protective Services filed a complaint in 2012 alleging M.S. was neglected and S.U. was dependent, with the family living in a homeless shelter and M.S. diagnosed with failure to thrive.
- A case plan required housing, income, mental health assessment and treatment, and completed parenting classes; after extensions, the agency moved for permanent custody in 2013.
- The children had been in agency custody since April 17, 2012, and the father of M.S. had limited involvement and was incarcerated; the father of S.U. had no contact with the agency.
- Appellant mother struggled with housing, employment, and consistent mental health treatment, and had inconsistent or incomplete participation in parenting classes and visitations.
- The court heard testimony about the foster caregiver’s stable, loving home and the grandmother’s potential placement, which the agency argued was inappropriate due to history with the child services system.
- The magistrate granted permanent custody to the agency; the trial court overruled appellant’s objections, and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody to the agency is in the children's best interests | Appellant argues a strong bond with S.U. and unresolved problems were resolved; argues agency failed to prove best interests. | Agency contends children thrived in current setting and best interests require permanent custody due to ongoing issues and lack of safe placement with mother. | Yes; best interests support permanent custody to the agency. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (clear and convincing standard and due process in permanent custody)
- In re Starkey, 150 Ohio App.3d 612 (2002-Ohio-6892) (appellate review of manifest weight in custody decisions)
- In re Rodgers, 138 Ohio App.3d 510 (2000) (standard of review for best interest findings)
- In re E.B., 2010-Ohio-1122 (12th Dist. Warren Nos CA2009-10-139, CA2009-11-146) (consolidated best interests factors and permanency analysis)
- In re Mraz, 2002-Ohio-7278 (12th Dist. Brown App. No. CA2002-05-011) (case plan completion does not preclude permanent custody)