This appeal involves the permanent custody of a minor who had been removed from the legal custody of her maternal grandmother and adjudicated a dependent child. Although Medina County Job and Family Services filed initial case plans that had the goal of returning the child to the grandmother’s home, the juvenile court later ordered that the grandmother be removed from the case plan. The juvenile court reasoned that the grandmother was not a suitable relative to provide a home for the child and that she lost her status as the child’s legal custodian when it placed the child in the temporary custody of Job and Family Services. Because there were no other suitable relatives to provide the child with a permanent home, Job and Family Services moved for, and was granted, permanent custody. The grandmother appealed, arguing that the juvenile court’s removal of her from the child’s case plan violated her constitutional and statutory rights as the child’s legal custodian. She has further argued that the juvenile court incorrectly decided to place the child in the permanent custody of Job and Family Services. This Court reverses the juvenile court’s judgment because, as the child’s custodian, the grandmother had statutory rights to be included in the child’s case plan and to continue working toward reunification with the child.
In a prior dependency case, the juvenile court removed the minor child, A.P., from the custody of her mother and later adjudicated her a dependent child. Although the facts of that case are not part of the record, it is not disputed that A.P. lived in a foster home for several months and was not reunified with her mother. In November 2009, the juvenile court placed A.P. in the legal custody of her maternal grandmother. The juvenile court initially ordered protective supervision by Job and Family Services, but terminated protective supervision and closed the case the following month.
This case began in June 2010, when Job and Family Services filed a dependency complaint, alleging that the grandmother had left A.P. in the care of her mother, who was not a suitable caregiver and was living in an inappropriate environment. By stipulation of the grandmother and the mother, A.P. was adjudicated a dependent child under Section 2151.04(C) of the Ohio Revised Code, which defines a dependent child as any child “[w]hose condition or environment is such as to warrant the state, in the interests of the child, in assuming the child’s guardianship[.]” The juvenile court allowed A.P. to remain in the grandmother’s custody under an order of protective supervision. One month later, however, A.P. was removed from the grandmother’s home and placed in the temporary custody of Job and Family Services because the grandmother violated the agreed order of protective supervision by again leaving A.P. in the care of her mother.
Judge(s): Clair E. Dickinson
Jurisdiction: Ohio Court of Appeals, District 9
Related Categories: Domestic Relations
|Court of Appeals Judge(s)|
|Appellant Lawyer(s)||Appellant Law Firm(s)|
|Daniel Gigiano||Law Office|
|Appellee Lawyer(s)||Appellee Law Firm(s)|
|Richard Barbera||Law Office|
|Eugene Elias||Law Office|
|Jennifer Moore||Law Office|
|Interested party Lawyer(s)||Interested party Law Firm(s)|