In re T.R.
Lead Opinion
I
{¶ 1} The Second District Court of Appeals has certified this case pursuant to Section 3(B)(4), Article IV, Ohio Constitution and
{¶ 2} For the following reasons, we answer the question in the negative and reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.
II
{¶ 3} In December 2003, appellant, Montgomery County Department of Job and Family Services — Children Services Division (“the department”), removed appellee S.H.’s four children from her home based on concerns about the condition of the home and neglect of the children. Shortly thereafter, the juvenile court magistrate granted interim temporary custody to the department.
{¶ 4} The department twice moved to have temporary custody extended while it pursued the goal of family reunification; the juvenile court granted both requests. The department eventually moved for permanent custody of the children pursuant to
{¶ 5} On appeal, S.H. argued, inter alia, that permanent custody could not be granted, because the department had failed to comply with
{¶ 6} The court of appeals agreed with S.H., stating, “The purpose of the case plan for adoption required by
{¶ 7} The court of appeals determined that its judgment conflicted with the judgments of the Fifth District Court of Appeals in In re McCutchen and the Twelfth District Court of Appeals in In re Cavender and certified the case as a conflict to this court. We determined that a conflict exists.
{¶ 8} This case requires us to review
{¶ 9}
{¶ 10}
{¶ 11} We are left, then, with a statute that does not indicate when children-services agencies are required to update case plans in these circumstances. The General Assembly could have easily created a timeline in
{¶ 13} In reaching the opposite conclusion, the court of appeals noted that juvenile courts in permanent-custody hearings must weigh the interests of the child and that updating the case plan to include adoption plans “allow[s] the court to consider the child’s prospects for adoption if the motion is granted, which is a matter that directly relates to the best interest of the child at issue. It defies logic to allow the agency to defer filing the adoption case plan required by
{¶ 14} We disagree with that determination for several reasons. First, while a juvenile court reviewing a motion for permanent custody was at one time required to consider the child’s probability of being adopted, former
{¶ 15} Second, children-services agencies are required to seek adoption for children who are placed in their permanent custody, and they must begin their efforts “no later than the date of permanent custody,” which is defined as “the date of the court’s filing of its order of permanent commitment of the child” to the children-services agency. See Ohio AdmuCode 5101:2-48-14(D); see also
{¶ 16} While it certainly may be helpful for a court to know the agency’s adoption plans, the court is not required to factor adoption possibilities into its analysis, and the agency will be bound to seek adoption for the child if permanent custody is granted regardless of whether the plans are filed before the motion is considered. Thus, interpreting
{¶ 17}
Judgment reversed.
Concurrence Opinion
concurring.
{¶ 18} I agree that
{¶ 19} The federal Adoption and Safe Families Act, enacted in 1997, Pub.L. No. 105-89, 111 Stat. 2115, reflected a “ ‘philosophical shift from reunifying broken homes to putting the health and safety of children first.’ ” Meehan, Symposium on In re C.W. (2006), 32 Ohio N.U.L.Rev. 586, 590, quoting Moyle & Rinker, It’s a Hard Knock Life: Does the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 Adequately Address Problems in the Child Welfare System? (2002), 39 Harv.J. on Legis. 375, 377. To that end, the act provides for concurrent planning; that is, an agency may engage in reasonable efforts to place a child for adoption or with a legal guardian concurrently with making reasonable efforts to reunify the family. 42 U.S.Code 671(a)(15)(F). Federal law also provides that under certain circumstances, “the State shall file a petition to terminate the parental rights of the child’s parents * * * and, concurrently, to identify, recruit, process, and approve a qualified family for an adoption.” (Emphasis added.) 42 U.S.Code 675(5)(E).
{¶ 20} Ohio’s version of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, enacted in 1999 and patterned after its federal counterpart, also authorizes concurrent planning.
{¶ 21} Unfortunately, the General Assembly was not clear about the timing of amending a child’s case plan to include actions to seek an adoptive family. If the General Assembly’s intent was to have the agency amend the case plan with an adoption plan by the time of the permanent custody hearing, then the General Assembly should clarify the law to expressly require public agencies to engage in concurrent planning and be prepared to present the alternative plan to reunification when seeking permanent custody.