|
|
| 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | Search | Upcoming cases |
Public Information Home
‘No Suitable Relative’ Finding Not Required When Court Decides Permanent Custody of Neglected Child
2005-0755. In re Schaefer, 2006-Ohio-5513.
Geauga App. No. 2004-G-2594, 2005-Ohio-1258. Judgment reversed and judgment of the trial court reinstated.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-5513.pdf
(Oct. 25, 2006) In a 7-0 decision, the Supreme Court of Ohio today held that, once a juvenile court has determined that a neglected or dependent child “cannot be placed with either of the child's parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents,” the court is not required to find in its determination of the child's best interest that no suitable relative is available to assume custody of the child before granting an order terminating parental rights and awarding permanent custody of the child to a county children services agency.
Today's ruling reverses a decision of the 11th District Court of Appeals and reinstates an order of the Geauga County Juvenile Court terminating the parental rights of Amy Schaefer and Doug Morris and granting permanent custody of their son Damian to Geauga County Job and Family Services (GCJFS).
Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, Justice Paul E. Pfeifer held that the trial court appropriately applied Ohio Revised Code 2151.414, which sets guidelines for termination of parental rights. The Court held that in reviewing the trial court's determination of the best interest of the child pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(D), the appellate court incorrectly assigned heightened importance to one of the five enumerated elements of the test – R.C. 2151.414(D)(4), which states that the juvenile court must consider: “The child's need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the agency.”
Damian Schaefer was born prematurely and tested positive for cocaine at birth as a result of his mother's admitted use of the drug during her pregnancy. Damian was subsequently removed from the custody of his parents by court order, found to be an abused and dependent child, and placed in the temporary custody of GCJFS. The agency immediately placed Damian with a foster family.
During the period between July 2003 and September 2004, Damian's parents failed to comply with various requirements of a case plan to re-establish their fitness as parents and regain custody of their son. In February 2004, Damian's paternal grandfather, David Morris, who lives in West Virginia, contacted the county and sought visitation with Damian. Damian began once-per-month visits with his grandfather and step-grandmother beginning in May 2004 after a background check and home inspection found David and his wife to be fit persons for unsupervised visits with the child.
In response to a motion by the county, the juvenile court scheduled a hearing in September 2004 to determine whether the parental rights and responsibilities of Amy Schaefer and Doug Morris for Damian should be terminated, and permanent custody granted to GCJFS. Testimony at the hearing established that Damian's parents had failed to complete required substance abuse rehabilitation programs or psychiatric counseling and had not complied with other terms of their case plan, and that Damian was thriving in the foster home. In addition, a court-appointed guardian ad litem representing Damian's interests recommended termination of parental rights and an award of permanent custody to GCJFS so that Damian could be placed for adoption with his foster family.
On Sept. 30, 2004, the juvenile court issued an order terminating parental rights and awarding permanent custody of Damian to GCJFS. The court's opinion took note of the hearing testimony affirming Damian's positive interactions with both his foster parents and with his grandfather, and specifically noted that “there was a possibility of a legally secure permanent placement” of Damian either by granting permanent custody to county family services for adoption by the foster parents or by granting legal custody to David Morris. As the basis for its judgment, the court cited the “totality of circumstances” in the case, including strong emotional bonds that Damian had established with his foster parents, the opinion of the guardian ad litem and the relatively brief time and small number of visits that had taken place between Damian and his grandfather.
Amy Schaefer appealed the juvenile court's decision. In March 2005, the 11th District Court of Appeals reversed the order terminating parental rights and directed GCJFS to maintain Damian's current temporary foster care arrangement while conducting further evaluation of the fitness of David Morris to assume legal custody of Damian. In its opinion, the 11th District found that the trial court had abused its discretion by terminating parental rights without finding by clear and convincing evidence that there was no suitable relative willing and able to assume legal custody of Damian. The county appealed that ruling, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in the case.
In today's decision, Justice Pfeifer wrote that “The trial court satisfied its statutory duty. That duty did not include the requirement imposed by the appellate court that the juvenile court determine by clear and convincing evidence that ‘termination of appellant's parental rights was not only a necessary option, but also the only option. Nor did that duty include the requirement that the juvenile court find by clear and convincing evidence that no suitable relative was available for placement.”
In applying the provisions of R.C. 2151.414, Justice Pfeifer wrote that “(t)he statute requires a weighing of all the relevant factors, and the trial court did that in this case. … The statute does not does not make the availability of a placement that would not require a termination of parental rights an all-controlling factor. The statute does not even require the court to weigh that factor more heavily than other factors.”
Contacts
David P. Joyce, 330.285.2222, for
Geauga County Job & Family Services.
Pamela W. Makowski, 440.729.7278, for Amy Schaefer.
Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of Court opinions. The full text of this and other Court opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/ROD/newpdf/. In the Full Text search box, enter the eight-digit case number at the top of this summary and click "Submit."