 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Moore9/5/2000
ls seeking to assist her.
At the hearing, BCCSB caseworker Christina Grandstaff testified that she observed ten to fifteen of Williams' visits with Zachary and that Williams' play with Zachary was often too rough. On several occasions, Grandstaff observed Williams playing a "game" in which Williams slapped Zachary on the cheek repeatedly, causing him to cry. After multiple discussions about this inappropriate behavior, Williams ceased the rough play. Grandstaff testified that although she had seen some improvement in Williams' parenting ability, Williams still lacked the necessary skills to adequately care for Zachary.
Karen Lavender, an educator with the DLS program, testified that she began working with the family in September 1997. She observed that, when Moore was not home, Williams would often leave Zachary propped up with a bottle, in spite of the fact that Lavender frequently emphasized the importance of nurturing Zachary, especially during feeding. On several occasions, Lavender found Williams heating the home with burners on the gas range and using a kerosene lantern, without a globe, to light the home, even after she was admonished not to do so. Lavender also observed that the home was very poorly kept on the occasions that Moore was not present.
Lavender found that Williams had great difficulty carrying over the skills she learned from week to week. Even after the family's eviction from their home, Williams failed to follow up on referrals that Lavender made to help her find housing. Lavender testified that she had not seen any progress in Williams' parenting skills until the month before the custody hearing when Williams began to develop a stronger bond with Zachary.
On June 23, 1999, the trial court entered a decision granting BCCSB permanent custody of Zachary. Williams appeals, raising four assignments of error.
Assignment of Error No. 1:
OHIO'S PERMANENT CUSTODY STATUTE, REVISED CODE SECTION 2151.414, VIOLATES CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS BECAUSE IT REQUIRES THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS OF A PARENT WITH A MENTAL DISABILITY.
Williams first argues that "R.C. 2151.414 is unconstitutional as a matter of law because it requires the termination of the parental rights of mentally retarded or developmentally disabled parents in violation of the parent's equal protection rights."
R.C. 2154.414 explicitly requires that the trial court find that a child cannot or should not be placed with a mentally retarded or mentally disabled parent whose disability is severe enough that it hinders the parent's ability to adequately care for the child. However, contrary to Williams' contention, R.C. 2151.414 does not mandate the termination of a parent's rights and responsibilities upon such a finding. Rather, R.C. 2151.414(E)(2) must be read in tandem with R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), which states that a court may grant permanent custody when it determines that the child cannot and should not be placed with either parent, and that it is in the child's best interest, as measured by the factors of R.C. 2151.414(D). If the court does not also find that it is in the child's best interest to terminate custody, the court can make alternative orders for the care of the child.
R.C. 2151.414(E) provides guidance as to making the cannot/ should not determination, but does not require a mandatory termination of parental rights. The cannot/should not determination is only half of the analysis required to terminate parental rights and responsibilities.
Viewing the statute in its entirety reveals that parents with mental disabilities are afforded the same protections as other parents
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|