2018 Ohio 3044
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- CCDCFS removed T.R.-B. (b. 1/7/01) in 2014 after incidents including Mother’s arrest and convictions for domestic violence and child endangering; child had prior dependency adjudication for truancy.
- T.R.-B. and one sibling were placed in temporary custody of CCDCFS; proceedings and extensions lasted over two years. At trial (June 2017) the child was 16 and had been in agency custody >2 years.
- Mother has bipolar disorder, a history of chemical dependency, repeated incarcerations, unstable housing, and inconsistent visits; Father was largely absent and incarcerated.
- The juvenile court found T.R.-B. abandoned under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(b), concluded Mother failed to remedy conditions, and awarded permanent custody to CCDCFS as being in the child’s best interest.
- Mother appealed, raising (1) that permanent custody was contrary to the child’s wishes and (2) that the court should have appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) for her due to mental incompetence.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant (Mother) Argument | Appellee (CCDCFS) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether granting permanent custody over child’s objection was contrary to child’s best interest | Granting permanent custody against T.R.-B.’s expressed wish to live with Mother was contrary to his best interests | Child’s wishes are only one factor; record showed inconsistent parental contact, long custodial history with CCDCFS, Mother’s incarceration/instability, and GAL recommended custody to CCDCFS | Affirmed: court properly weighed statutory best-interest factors and clear-and-convincing evidence supports permanent custody to CCDCFS |
| Whether court erred by not appointing a GAL for Mother who has bipolar disorder | Mother asserted she appeared mentally incompetent and thus required a GAL under R.C. 2151.281(C) and Juv.R. 4(B)(3) | No record evidence Mother was mentally incompetent; court conducted extensive colloquy showing Mother understood proceedings; Mother never requested a GAL or objected below | Affirmed: no requirement to appoint GAL sua sponte; no plain error or demonstrated prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parents have a constitutionally protected interest in custody subject to the child’s welfare)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (permanent custody requires clear and convincing proof of statutory grounds and best interest)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (Ohio 2006) (trial court must consider all R.C. 2151.414(D) best-interest factors)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1959) (definition of the clear-and-convincing evidence standard)