In re T.A., 2013 Ohio 5646

Twins born Dec. 27, 2009; removed Aug. 21, 2011 after LCCS referrals (neglect, parental drug use, one child ingested cocaine, bedbug infestation). Children were adjudicated dependent/neglected and placed in foster care.
Mother (a minor when case began) made minimal progress on case-plan goals (substance abuse, mental health); Father initially progressed but then disengaged and became unreachable.
LCCS could not locate a committed kinship placement; paternal great-grandparents lived in Florida, had limited contact, and did not participate in reunification efforts early in the case.
At the permanent-custody proceeding the parents stipulated under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) that the children could not/should not be returned due to unresolved substance-abuse issues; trial focused on best interests under R.C. 2151.414(D).
After the hearing but before the journal entry, the foster father died; no party requested further proceedings on that basis. The juvenile court granted permanent custody to LCCS and terminated parental rights; parents appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by not holding a new hearing or placing children with paternal great-grandparents after foster father's death (post-hearing change in circumstances)	Father: court should have reopened evidence or awarded legal custody to great-grandparents because alleged adoptive placement (foster parents) was no longer viable	State/LCCS: foster father’s death did not compel new hearing; parents did not request further proceedings after notice; the adoption possibility was not central to best-interest analysis	Court: No error. Father raised issue for first time on appeal and did not show the death altered the statutory best-interest analysis; assignment overruled
Whether granting permanent custody to LCCS was against the manifest weight of the evidence / violated due process	Parents: trial court’s best-interest finding was unsupported; children should be placed with paternal great-grandparents	State/LCCS: evidence showed children had bonded with foster caregivers, had improved in foster home, parents and relatives had not shown ability/commitment to provide permanent, legally secure placement	Court: No. Clear-and-convincing evidence supported R.C. 2151.414(D) factors (interaction/bonds, guardian ad litem recommendation, need for legally secure placement); permanent custody affirmed

In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (1996) (framework for permanent-custody requirements under R.C. 2151.414)
In re T.R., 120 Ohio St.3d 136 (2008) (statutory best-interest factors do not include probability of adoption)