In re S.B.

Summary

The Twelfth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed a juvenile court decision granting Clinton County Children Services permanent custody of a minor child. The biological mother and father argued that the decision was unsupported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The appellate court addressed the treatment of hearsay in permanent-custody proceedings and concluded that sufficient admissible evidence supported the award of permanent custody.

Holdings

1. The Rules of Evidence apply to permanent-custody hearings, and hearsay is inadmissible unless an applicable exception applies. Although the failure to object waives all but plain error, inadmissible hearsay warrants reversal only when the juvenile court relied on it in terminating parental rights. Because the record did not show reliance on inadmissible hearsay, the court excluded plainly inadmissible hearsay from its analysis but affirmed based on sufficient admissible evidence.
2. The juvenile court properly found that awarding permanent custody to the Agency was in the child's best interest under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). The evidence supported the child's strong bond with and desire to be adopted by her placement, her poor or minimal relationships with Mother and Father, her improvement in the placement, her custodial history, and her need for a legally secure permanent placement.
3. The statutory requirements for permanent custody were satisfied because permanent custody was in the child's best interest and the child had been in the Agency's temporary custody for at least 12 of the preceding 22 months. Because one circumstance under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(e) is sufficient, the court did not need to review the alternative finding that the child could not or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.
4. A parent's successful completion of the terms of a case plan is not dispositive of whether permanent custody should be awarded.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the juvenile court's award of permanent custody to Clinton County Children Services was supported by sufficient clear and convincing evidence.
2. Whether the permanent-custody judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
3. Whether the statutory best-interest and second-prong requirements for permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414 were satisfied.
4. What effect, if any, the substantial amount of unobjected-to hearsay testimony had on appellate review of the permanent-custody decision.

Disposition

affirmed