Summary
The First District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed a Hamilton County Juvenile Court judgment awarding permanent custody of A.B. to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services. The court held that clear and convincing evidence supported the juvenile court’s best-interest determination, including the lack of an approved interstate placement study, the limited relationship between A.B. and her father, and the father’s failure to complete case-plan services or address A.B.’s mental-health needs.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether clear and convincing evidence supported the juvenile court's determination that granting permanent custody of A.B. to HCJFS was in A.B.'s best interest.
- Whether the absence of an active approved ICPC home study prevented placement of A.B. with father in Georgia.
Holdings
- Because father lived in Georgia and HCJFS lacked an active approval from the appropriate Georgia authority, the juvenile court could not place A.B. with father under the ICPC.
- Clear and convincing evidence supported the juvenile court's determination that permanent custody to HCJFS was in A.B.'s best interest.
Key quotations
“A legally secure placement refers to more than just a roof over one’s head, rather, a legally secure placement, ‘ “encompasses a stable environment where a child will live in safety with one or more dependable adults who will provide for the child’s needs.” ’” (¶32)
“Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that “ ‘produce[s] in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.’ ”” (¶21)
Factual background
A.B., who has intellectual, developmental, and significant mental-health needs, had been in the temporary custody of HCJFS for more than 32 months by the time of trial. Father had little contact with A.B. from 2013 until 2020, had only two in-person visits thereafter, did not complete required parenting education or a mental-health evaluation, and did not engage with A.B.'s service providers. Father also withheld A.B.'s prescribed medication during a visit and lacked an approved Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children home study for placement in Georgia. A.B. was bonded with her foster family, had improved substantially in that placement, and did not express an interest in being placed with father.
Procedural history
A.B. was adjudicated neglected and dependent in January 2020. After extended temporary custody, HCJFS moved for permanent custody based in part on A.B.'s having been in agency custody for at least 12 of the preceding 22 months. Following a July 2022 trial before a magistrate, the magistrate awarded permanent custody to HCJFS. The juvenile court overruled father's objection, adopted the magistrate's decision, and affirmed the permanent-custody award. The First District affirmed.