In re T.S.
85 N.E.3d 225
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- T.S., born ~2010, was adjudicated dependent/neglected repeatedly after domestic violence and concerns about Mother's parenting; foster placement began in 2013.
- GCCS obtained interim/temporary custody at various points; Mother briefly regained custody in April 2015 but T.S. was returned to agency custody after new concerns in July 2015.
- GCCS filed a dependency complaint requesting permanent custody in July 2015; a three-day hearing was held Jan–Feb 2016.
- Trial court found Father had abandoned or lacked commitment to T.S.; Mother had multiple dependency adjudications while T.S. was in her care and exhibited instability and limited ability to sustain parenting.
- The court awarded permanent custody to GCCS and terminated both parents’ rights; both parents appealed raising challenges chiefly to the sufficiency/weight of evidence, best-interest analysis, reasonable-efforts findings, and guardian ad litem/child-counsel issues.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | Father's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination and grant of permanent custody is supported by clear and convincing evidence | Mother argued the decision was against the weight of the evidence because she had completed most case-plan tasks and stabilized | Father argued the trial court misapplied best-interest factors and that he had made progress on case plan | Court held competent, credible evidence supported best-interest findings and permanence need; termination affirmed |
| Best-interest analysis under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) | Mother contended her improvements and visits favored reunification and the court should not have prioritized permanent custody | Father emphasized prior contact and family ties and urged relative placement (sister) | Court found interaction with foster family, custodial history, child's needs for legal permanence, and parents' instability weighed for agency custody |
| Whether trial court erred by failing to make/consider R.C. 2151.419 reasonable-efforts finding | Mother argued absence of an explicit reasonable-efforts finding invalidated permanent custody award | Father did not press this issue | Court found reasonable-efforts requirements were addressed earlier in the case, an exception to the finding applied (not challenged on appeal), and any omission was harmless given prior findings of reasonable efforts |
| Guardian ad litem performance and need for separate counsel for the child | Mother claimed the GAL failed to comply with Sup.R. 48(D)(13) and that the child’s inconsistent wishes required separate counsel | Father did not press this issue | Court held GAL’s testimony/reports were admissible despite alleged shortcomings; separate counsel not required because child was young, wishes were inconsistent, and the GAL adequately reported them |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (distinguishes when reasonable-efforts finding is required depending on procedure used to seek permanent custody)