2019 Ohio 3045
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- CCDCFS filed for dependency and obtained emergency custody two weeks after the child’s birth (March–April 2017); child remained in agency temporary custody and placed with a foster family that had previously adopted the child’s half-brother.
- Father was evasive with the agency, had unresolved paternity initially, had criminal history, was arrested in Dec. 2017 and later incarcerated for three years; he did not seek visitation while evasive.
- Paternity was later established; paternal aunt completed background checks and received limited visitation beginning June 2018 but attended only half of scheduled visits.
- CCDCFS moved for permanent custody (Oct. 2017); father sought legal custody for paternal aunt (May 2018); hearings occurred July–Oct. 2018.
- GAL and foster mother testified child is bonded to the foster family and is "thriving"; GAL recommended denying permanent custody and granting legal custody to foster mother with aunt visitation, but testified he would not advocate removing the child from foster placement.
- Juvenile court found the child abandoned, granted CCDCFS permanent custody, and denied father’s motion for legal custody to the aunt while preserving visitation between aunt and child. Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | CCDCFS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether granting permanent custody to CCDCFS was in the child’s best interest | Permanent custody was unnecessary because a suitable relative (paternal aunt) was available to provide a legally secure placement | Permanent custody was appropriate given the child’s bond with foster family, custodial history, and overall best-interest factors | Affirmed: court found abandonment factor met and clear-and-convincing evidence supported permanent custody based on R.C. 2151.414(D) factors |
| Whether denying legal custody to paternal aunt was an abuse of discretion | Denial improperly severed family ties when aunt was willing to assume legal custody and visitation was appropriate | Relative willingness does not control; court may award permanent custody if best interest favors agency despite a possible relative placement | Affirmed: father lacks standing to challenge denial as an independent error; court properly weighed factors and preserved visitation with aunt |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Schaefer, 11 Ohio St.3d 498 (statutory best-interest balancing — availability of relative placement is not controlling)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re A.J., 148 Ohio St.3d 218 (standard of review for juvenile custody decisions)