Summary
The Tenth District Court of Appeals of Ohio reviews an order granting permanent custody of B.N., Jr. to Franklin County Children Services. The appeal raises issues concerning the Indian Child Welfare Act, the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence, the guardian ad litem’s investigation of the child’s wishes, and testimony concerning drug-screen results. The decision states that the appellate court will affirm and begins its analysis of the ICWA assignment of error.
Holdings
- The trial court did not plainly err in conducting its ICWA inquiry because the mother denied Native American tribal membership, counsel were given an opportunity to provide contrary information, appellant never alleged Native American heritage, and the record did not show a manifest miscarriage of justice.
- The trial court's grant of permanent custody to FCCS was supported by clear and convincing evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- The trial court did not plainly err in finding that the three-year-old child was too young to express his wishes for purposes of the best-interest analysis or in relying on the guardian ad litem's reports and testimony.
- Even assuming the trial court erred by admitting the caseworker's testimony regarding appellant's drug-screen results, the error was not plain error because the remaining evidence overwhelmingly supported permanent custody.
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court plainly erred in conducting its inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act and related regulations.
- Whether the grant of permanent custody to FCCS was supported by clear and convincing evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Whether the trial court plainly erred by finding that the three-year-old child was too young to express his wishes and by allegedly failing to require the guardian ad litem to investigate those wishes.
- Whether the trial court plainly erred by admitting the caseworker's testimony concerning appellant's drug-screen and hair-follicle-test results.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (34)
- H.C. v. R.C., 2016-Ohio-668, ¶ 9 (10th Dist.)(followed)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 1997-Ohio-401, ¶ 24(followed)
- In re K.S., 2025-Ohio-1381, ¶ 24 (10th Dist.)(followed)
- In re A.S., 2022-Ohio-1861, ¶ 54 (10th Dist.)(followed)
- M.S.K. v. C.K., 2016-Ohio-5046, ¶ 8 (10th Dist.)(followed)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 157 (1990)(followed)
- In re Hoffman, 2002-Ohio-5368, ¶ 14(followed)
- In re Smith, 77 Ohio App.3d 1, 16 (6th Dist. 1991)(followed)
- In re S.C., 2022-Ohio-356, ¶ 34 (10th Dist.)(followed)
- In re B.L., 2005-Ohio-1151, ¶ 7 (10th Dist.)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 34.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…