William S., In re
Decision Date | 04 March 1996 |
Docket Number | No. 94-2068,94-2068 |
Citation | 75 Ohio St.3d 95,661 N.E.2d 738 |
Parties | IN RE WILLIAM S. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
Permanent custody may not be granted unless the trial court finds clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the eight enumerated factors in R.C. 2151.414(E) exist.
Appellant, Erie County Department of Human Services, appeals the decision of the court of appeals which reversed the decision of the trial court. Appellee, Karen Storch, is the natural mother of minors William (born October 3, 1985), Edward (born July 17, 1987), Jane (born May 12, 1989), and Robert (born May 22, 1990). William Storch, Jr., the natural father of all four children and appellee's former husband, has been incarcerated in the state prison system since August 1990. His earliest possible release date is in 1997. In response to allegations of neglect, appellant first investigated the family situation in February 1990. Appellant referred the case to the Ohio Department of Health for home visits. Appellant's next contact with the family was in May 1990, upon neglect allegations brought by the local police department. Appellant's investigation substantiated the allegations of neglect. Appellant worked with appellee by providing homemaker services, protective day care, and transportation. However, after a short time, Robert was evaluated as a "failure to thrive" child. Appellee voluntarily agreed to place Robert in the temporary custody of appellant for a thirty-day period. On July 6, 1990, Robert returned to the custody of appellee. Appellant continued to work with appellee on her parenting and housekeeping skills, but her skills continued to be poor and inappropriate.
On August 8, 1990, when Robert was found with cigarette burns on his toes, appellant petitioned the court for custody of the children. The court awarded custody to appellant, placing the three oldest children with their paternal grandparents and Robert temporarily with foster care. Subsequently Robert was placed with his paternal grandparents. On November 12, 1990, appellant developed a case plan, the goal of which was to reunite the family. The plan included relative placement, homemaker services, case management, and protective day care.
On February 6, 1992, appellant initiated this case by filing complaints for permanent custody. On April 2, 1992, appellant filed a case plan, the purpose of which was to reunite the family. The plan identified specific problems with appellee's parenting and housekeeping skills, including unsuitable housing, inadequate housekeeping skills, and failure to control the children's behavior. Appellee was cooperative in fulfilling the case plan requirements, but because of her lower intelligence she could not make significant progress in counseling and parenting. She was unable to understand the needs of children with specific problems.
Because appellant believes that appellee has indicated a lack of commitment to the children and an unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home for the children, it moved, on September 15, 1992 and on October 27, 1992, for permanent custody of the children. On July 8, 1993, the trial court granted permanent custody of the children to appellant. On January 27, 1994, the trial court, upon the father's request, entered findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court found that appellee is limited in her cognitive functioning and has little insight, if any, into her own plight or the needs and conditions of her children; has not provided stable and consistent housing both for herself and for her children; has with minor exception never maintained gainful employment during her adult life; and is unable or unwilling to address the special needs of her children. The court concluded that appellee "is unable to provide an adequate permanent home for the children at the prsent [sic ] time and in the foreseeable future and has failed for a period of years after the children's removal to remedy the conditions which prompted their removal." The court ordered the children to be placed in appellant's permanent care, custody, and control. The court of appeals reversed.
Finding its judgment in conflict with the judgment of the Ninth District Court of Appeals in In re Higby (1992), 81 Ohio App.3d 466, 611 N.E.2d 403, the court of appeals entered an order certifying a conflict. This cause is now before this court upon our determination that a conflict exists.
Kevin J. Baxter, Erie County Prosecuting Attorney, and G. Stuart O'Hara, Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.
Erie County Public Defender's Office and Mary M. Bower, for appellee.
Ghada Halasa, guardian ad litem.
Jeffrey D. Ginther, Columbus, urging reversal for amici curiae, John and Katherine Alexander, foster parents.
The issue certified for our review is whether, in a termination of parental rights action, R.C. 2151.414(E) permits a trial court to find that a child cannot be placed with either of his parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with his parents, absent a determination, by clear and convincing evidence, that one of the eight predicate findings in R.C. 2151.414(E) exists.
Initially we note that in interpreting the statutory provisions pertaining to juvenile court, we must carry out the purposes of the statute as stated in R.C. 2151.01:
When a public children services agency files a motion for permanent custody, R.C. 2151.414(A) directs the court to conduct a hearing. In order to terminate parental rights and grant permanent custody to the agency, R.C. 2151.414(B) requires that:
R.C. 2151.414(E) sets forth guidelines for determining whether a child cannot be placed with either of his parents within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with his parents:
To continue reading
Request your trial- State ex rel. Wright v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.
-
In re A.M.
...not be placed with either parent. E.g., In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 2007-Ohio-1104, 862 N.E.2d 816, ¶ 50; In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95, 99, 661 N.E.2d 738 (1996). {¶ 51} In the case at bar, although the trial court found several R.C. 2151.414(E) factors applied, we focus upon the t......
-
In re A.M.
...not be placed with either parent. In re C.F. , 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 2007-Ohio-1104, 862 N.E.2d 816, ¶ 50, citing In re William S. , 75 Ohio St.3d 95, 661 N.E.2d 738 (1996), syllabus.a. R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), (4), and (14){¶ 58} The trial court determined that R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), (4), and (14) ......
-
In re Ar.C.
...or should not be placed with either parent. In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 2007-Ohio-1104, 862 N.E.2d 816, ¶ 50; In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95, 661 N.E.2d 738 (1996); e.g., In re L.R.B., 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 28826, 2020-Ohio-6642, 2020 WL 7310982, ¶ 52; In re Hurlow, 4th Dist. Gall......
-
When Love is not Enough: Termination of Parental Rights When the Parents Have a Mental Disability
...274 Id. at *4 (citing OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 2151.414(E) (LexisNexis 2007); In re William S., 661 N.E.2d 738, 741 (Ohio 1996)). 275 Id. 276 Id. 277 Id. 278 Id. 279 Id. 280 Id. 281 Id. 282 Id. 283 Id. 284 Id. 285 Id. 526 CAPITAL UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [37:491 In In re Curry , 286 the court imm......