2018 Ohio 5058
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- T.A.M., born 2004, was adopted by Nathan McIe, who in November 2016 was accused by T.A.M. of sexual abuse; criminal charges followed and McIe was jailed.
- Agency filed an abuse complaint (Nov 22, 2016), amended to dependency; McIe admitted dependency and the court granted temporary custody to the agency.
- McIe later pled guilty to unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and felonious assault (Feb 2018) and was sentenced to five years; he stipulated the offenses were against T.A.M.
- Agency sought permanent custody (Apr 30, 2018); the guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody, and the juvenile court granted it (June 8, 2018).
- McIe appealed, arguing the agency failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify and improperly excluded placement with paternal grandmother Iva without doing home study or background checks.
- Trial record shows agency considered relatives suggested by McIe but lacked cooperation from some; Iva was excluded due to a prior substantiated child-welfare finding related to this case; T.A.M. remained in a residential treatment program (Boys Village) with ongoing sexualized behaviors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether agency failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify before permanent custody | McIe: agency did not pursue relative placement (Iva), failed to run background checks, home study, or provide services, so reunification efforts were unreasonable | Agency: reasonable-efforts determinations were previously made at temporary custody and extension hearings; at permanency hearing focus is best interest and placement options | Court: No reversible error — prior reasonable-efforts findings existed; permanent-custody review properly focused on best interests and placement availability |
| Whether a legally secure permanent placement could be achieved without granting permanent custody to the agency (i.e., placement with Iva) | McIe: a relative (Iva) lived with child and could provide placement; agency’s inaction prevented reunification | Agency: Iva had a substantiated child-welfare finding related to the same case; other relatives failed to follow up; child needed continued treatment at Boys Village to stabilize | Court: Held clear and convincing evidence supports that no suitable relative placement was available and that permanent custody was necessary for a legally secure placement and child's best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Murray v. Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (parents have fundamental liberty interest in child custody)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (parental rights as fundamental liberty interests)
- Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (liberty interest in childrearing)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (standard for terminating parental rights)
- In re B.C., 141 Ohio St.3d 55 (R.C. 2151.414 procedures for permanent custody)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (reasonable-efforts determinations and permanent custody proceedings)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (best-interest analysis requires totality of circumstances)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (standard of appellate review in dependency/termination appeals)
- In re Adoption of Lay, 25 Ohio St.3d 41 (appellate review standard)