Summary
This Ohio Court of Appeals opinion reviews a juvenile court's grant of permanent custody of a minor child to the county Department of Job and Family Services over the biological father's objections. The appellant challenged the decision on multiple grounds, including sufficiency of the evidence, manifest weight, the guardian ad litem's failure to conduct a home visit, and the agency's lack of diligent reunification efforts. Applying the clear and convincing evidence standard and relevant statutory factors under R.C. 2151.414, the appellate court found sufficient evidence supporting the trial court's findings regarding the parents' intellectual disabilities, inability to meet the child's special medical needs, and failure to remedy the conditions causing removal. The court affirmed the juvenile court's judgment awarding permanent custody to the state agency.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether clear and convincing evidence supported granting permanent custody to the Department of Job and Family Services.
- Whether the trial court’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Whether the guardian ad litem’s failure to visit the parents’ home violated Ohio Supreme Court Rule 48.
- Whether the trial court made sufficient indication that it considered all factors in R.C. 2151.414.
- Whether the Department failed to engage in a diligent case plan or make reasonable reunification efforts.
Holdings
- The trial court’s finding of clear and convincing evidence supporting permanent custody was correct.
- The trial court’s decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Sup.R. 48 does not require a guardian ad litem to visit the parents’ home; the error is overruled.
- The trial court satisfied the statutory requirement to consider all factors under R.C. 2151.414.
- The Department’s case planning and efforts were reasonable and diligent; the error is denied.
Key quotations
“Clear and convincing evidence is that evidence "which will provide in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established."” (¶18)
“"It was not possible for Mother to independently parent child, absent placing child in harm’s way."” (¶9)
Factual background
R.M., born January 25, 2022, has Chung Jansen Syndrome with severe medical needs. The mother lived with a boyfriend and grandmother in deplorable, drug‑filled conditions, and the child suffered failure to thrive. The father was intermittently incarcerated and declined participation in the case plan. The Department of Job and Family Services obtained permanent custody after finding the parents unable to meet the child’s needs.
Procedural history
The juvenile court found the child dependent and neglected, placed the child in temporary custody of the Department, and after hearings granted permanent custody based on clear and convincing evidence that the parents could not provide adequate care. The father appealed the decision.