In re T.B.
2014 Ohio 2051
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Eight children (including two sets of twins) are the subject of juvenile proceedings; dispositional hearings for six children were held in 2012 and hearings for the twins (child 7 and child 8) were held in 2012, with permanent custody sought by CCDCFS.
- Altovise Beard, the caseworker, engaged with the family beginning in 2007 after concerns of overload with four children; prior removal in 2008 followed by restoration under protective supervision, which ended in 2010.
- In February 2011, child 6 sustained severe burns; the maternal grandmother violated the safety plan by leaving children with mother, leading to emergency custody of all six older children.
- Mother was convicted of child endangering twice and imprisoned for 18 months; the six older children were placed in specialized foster homes due to behavioral and medical needs.
- Relatives were investigated but deemed unsuitable for long-term placement (maternal grandmother’s safety-plan violation; aunt B.B. with a prior felony; aunt A.R. unsure about long-term custody); paternity for the twins remained unestablished and fathers generally showed little commitment.
- The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that the children could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time and that permanent custody to CCDCFS was in the children’s best interests; mother appealed arguing for updated evaluation and evidentiary issues, but the court affirmed all permanent custody judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination of parental rights and permanent custody was proper. | S.B. argues the court erred in terminating rights and awarding permanent custody. | CCDCFS contends evidence supported termination and best interests. | Yes; orders awarding permanent custody were proper and in each child’s best interest. |
| Whether reasonable efforts were made to place children with relatives. | Mother contends relatives were suitable and should have been placed. | Agency found relatives unsuitable and made reasonable efforts to place. | Relatives not suitable; agency reasonable efforts supported permanent custody. |
| Whether an updated psychological evaluation was required or harmless to rely on a prior evaluation. | Mother requested an updated evaluation; relied on 2011 report. | Evaluation was chronic and valid; outdated portions were properly limited. | Harmless error; reliance on 2011 evaluation did not affect outcome. |
| Whether consideration of proceedings from other cases tainted the dispositional rulings. | Mother claims cross-referencing other case proceedings biased the decision. | Overlap was harmless; separate, case-specific determinations were made for each child. | Harmless error; decisions supported by substantial, separate evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (defines 'clear and convincing' standard and burden of proof)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (standards for termination and best interests in custody cases)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (2006) (statutory factors guiding best interest/placement decisions)
- In re T.S., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92816 (2009) (emphasizes permanency and best interests for neglected/dependent children)
- In re C.W., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-110342 (2011) (necessity to consider best placement options within statutory framework)