In re Y.W.
2017 Ohio 4218
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Y.W., born April 2015, is the child of Yanica Wright and Derek Jones; agency sought permanent custody.
- Shelter-care hearing July 26–27, 2016; agency granted temporary custody and filed a dependent-children complaint July 27, 2016.
- August 24, 2016 agency case plan; GAL appointed August 1, 2016; GAL recommended temporary custody, later permanent custody.
- November 9, 2016 permanent-custody hearing; November 30, 2016 trial court granted permanent custody to the Agency.
- Yanica argues the court relied on R.C. 2151.414(E)(11) and that prior termination of rights to other children mandated permanent custody; court also relied on R.C. 2151.414(E)(6) (domestic-violence finding).
- Yanica’s rights had previously been involuntarily terminated as to six of her other children in 2010; this fact appears in the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody was proper under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1). | Yanica claims the court erred by treating E(11) as controlling without clear proof she can provide permanent placement. | Agency argues the court properly proceeded under E(6) and E(11) and that best interests support permanent custody. | No error; clear and convincing evidence supports both E(6) and E(11) findings and best interests. |
| Whether E(11) can apply given prior termination of parental rights to other children. | Yanica asserts prior terminations mandate ongoing permanent custody without evaluating current proof. | Agency contends E(11) requires proof that she can provide a legally secure placement despite prior terminations. | Court properly considered E(11); Yanica failed to prove current ability to provide permanent placement. |
| Whether the best-interest determination supports permanent custody. | Yanica contends rights termination alone should not dictate permanent custody. | Agency argues Y.W. has a stable foster placement, bond with siblings, and adoption opportunities with foster parents. | Yes; best interests favor permanent custody to the Agency. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (1990) (parents have a fundamental liberty interest in child custody)
- In re Meyer, 98 Ohio App.3d 189 (1994) (clear and convincing standard; review of evidence for termination of parental rights)
- In re Goodwin, 2008-Ohio-5399 (2008) (permanent-custody factors and standard under the statute)
- In re A.F., 2012-Ohio-1137 (2012) (application of R.C. 2151.414(E)(11) burden and best interests)
- In re E.M., 2015-Ohio-5316 (2015) (appellate review of best-interest factors in custody cases)