In re H.C.

Summary

The Ohio Fourth District Court of Appeals reviewed an appeal from a juvenile court judgment granting Highland County Department of Jobs and Family Services permanent custody of a dependent child. The biological father challenged the findings supporting permanent custody and the determination that permanent custody was in the child's best interest. The court concluded that the statutory temporary-custody-duration ground independently supported the judgment and that competent, credible evidence supported the best-interest determination.

Holdings

1. A trial court need find only one of the factors listed in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (e), together with the required best-interest finding, before awarding permanent custody to a children-services agency. Because the twelve-of-twenty-two-months ground under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) was supported, the court did not need to rely on abandonment under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(b).
2. The permanent-custody judgment was supported by sufficient, competent, and credible evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
3. A trial court evaluating a child's best interest need not find that no suitable relative is available and is not required to favor relative placement over agency permanent custody.
4. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(b) permits the trial court to consider the child's wishes either directly from the child or through the guardian ad litem, with due regard for the child's maturity.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the juvenile court's finding that statutory grounds existed for permanent custody was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
2. Whether the juvenile court was required to find abandonment in addition to the child's having been in temporary agency custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period.
3. Whether the juvenile court's best-interest determination was supported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
4. Whether the juvenile court was required to favor placement with a relative or find that placement with a parent or relative was unavailable before awarding permanent custody to the agency.
5. Whether the juvenile court properly considered the child's wishes through the guardian ad litem.

Disposition

affirmed