 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Moore9/5/2000
not affected by a disability. In order to terminate any parent's rights and responsibilities, there must be a finding that it is in the child's best interest to do so, and that the child cannot or should not be placed with the parent. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1). The statute represents a reasonable attempt to safeguard the rights of children and does not on its face violate the equal protection rights of mentally disabled parents. See In re Mayle (June 3, 1991), Stark App. No. CA-8366, unreported; In re Norton (Nov. 26, 1990), Stark App. No. CA-8185, unreported.
Williams further argues that " s a factual matter, the Magistrate erred to the prejudice of the mother, resulting in a violation of her constitutionally protected equal protection rights." Although referencing an equal protection violation, Williams fails to state with any specificity what violation occurred. Rather, she appears to argue that the trial court erred in its application of R.C. 2151.414.
When granting a motion for permanent custody, the trial court is required to make specific statutory findings. See In re William S. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 95, syllabus. A reviewing court must determine whether the trial court followed the statutory factors in making its decision or abused its discretion by deviating from the statutory factors. Id.
When a state agency moves for permanent custody, the trial court is required first to determine "if it is in the best interest of the child to permanently terminate parental rights and grant permanent custody to the agency that filed the motion." R.C. 2151.414(A)(1). In making the best interest determination, the trial court must consider all relevant factors, including but not limited to the following factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(D):
(1) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's parents, siblings, relatives, foster parents and out-of-home providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child;
(2) The wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child or through the child's guardian ad litem, with due regard for the maturity of the child;
(3) The custodial history of the child, including whether the child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period ending on or after March 18, 1999;
(4) 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;
(5) Whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this section apply in relation to the parents and child.
The trial court made specific findings relating to each of the above factors and concluded that it would be in Zachary's best interest to award permanent custody to BCCSB. The trial court noted that Zachary had been in foster care continuously since March 1998 and no other suitable relatives were available for placement. The trial court considered the fact that Williams was largely unable to care for her son and, due to her cognitive limitations, would not be a resource for permanent placement. The trial court also noted that a closer bond had developed between Williams and Zachary since he was placed in foster care.
Williams does not specifically challenge any of the trial court's findings regarding Zachary's best interest. We find that the record amply supports the trial court's findings and its ultimate determination that an award of permanent custody to BCCSB would be in Zachary's best interest.
In addition to determining the ch
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.
|
|