 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Moore9/5/2000
ild's best interest, the trial court must determine by clear and convincing evidence whether the child can be placed with a parent within a reasonable time. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a). The trial court is required to enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time if any factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(E) apply, including the following:
(1) Following the placement of the child outside the child's home and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child's home. In determining whether the parents have substantially remedied those conditions, the court shall consider parental utilization of medical, psychiatric, psychological, and other social and rehabilitative services and material resources that were made available to the parents for the purpose of changing parental conduct to allow them to resume and maintain parental duties.
(2) Chronic mental illness, chronic emotional illness, mental retardation, physical disability, or chemical dependency of the parent that is so severe that it makes the parent unable to provide an adequate permanent home for the child at the present time and, as anticipated, within one year *.
*
(12) Any other factor the court considers relevant.
The trial court in the present case specifically enumerated these sections of R.C. 2151.414 as applicable to appellant and set forth the facts which supported its findings.
The trial court found that Williams continuously and repeatedly failed to substantially remedy the conditions causing Zachary to be placed outside her home. Williams did not obtain adequate housing, but rather moved to a homeless shelter. She chose to continue her relationship with Moore in spite of a no contact order. Although Williams participated in outpatient therapy, she failed to follow through on a referral for a psychiatric evaluation. Despite months of therapy, Williams' therapist was unable to address key areas of concern, such as life skills, parenting skills, impulse control, and judgment issues. Although participating in a consistent course of therapy, Williams failed to make substantial progress in any of these areas due in large part to her cognitive limitations.
The record sufficiently supports each of the trial court's findings, and we find that the trial court's determination that Zachary should not and could not be placed with Williams within a reasonable time is supported by clear and convincing evidence. We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in its application of R.C. 2151.414. Accordingly, the first assignment of error is overruled.
Assignment of Error No. 2:
OHIO REVISED CODE SECTIONS 2151 et. seq. AND 2151.414 VIOLATE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF A PARENT SUFFERING FROM MENTAL DISABILITIES.
Williams first contends that, "as a matter of law, R.C. 2151 violates the due process rights of a parent suffering from cognitive limitations and mental illness because the statute fails to provide adequate protection for the incompetent parent."
While arguing that the statute "fails to provide adequate protection," Williams' complaint seems to be that the statute provides for an excess of protection. Williams argues that R.C. 2151 violates due process because it does not require a hearing to determine a party's competency before appointing a guardian ad litem.
R.C. 215
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.
|
|