Case Title: In re C.T.

Citation: 2008-Ohio-4570

Docket Number: 20080073

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2008-09-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re C.T., 119 Ohio St.3d 494, 2008-Ohio-4570.] 
 
 
IN RE C.T.; STOLL, GDN. AD LITEM, APPELLANT; CRAWFORD COUNTY 
DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as In re C.T., 119 Ohio St.3d 494, 2008-Ohio-4570.] 
A guardian ad litem has authority under R.C. 2151.281(I) and (F) to file and 
prosecute a motion to terminate parental rights and award permanent 
custody in a child-welfare case. 
(No. 2008-0073 – Submitted June 24, 2008 – Decided September 17, 2008.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Crawford County,  
No. 3-07-20, 174 Ohio App.3d 594, 2007-Ohio-6970. 
__________________ 
SYLLABUS OF THE COURT 
A guardian ad litem has authority under R.C. 2151.281(I) and 2151.415(F) to file 
and prosecute a motion to terminate parental rights and award permanent 
custody in a child welfare case. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J. 
{¶ 1} The issue before us is whether a guardian ad litem has statutory 
authority in a child welfare action to file and prosecute a motion for permanent 
custody.  For the reasons that follow, we hold that a guardian ad litem has 
authority under R.C. 2151.281(I) and 2151.415(F) to file and prosecute a motion 
to terminate parental rights and award permanent custody to a public children 
services agency. 
Procedural History 
{¶ 2} Appellee Crawford County Department of Job and Family Services 
(“DJFS”) removed two-month-old C.T. from the custody of his mother, appellee 
Naomi Agapay, on January 7, 2006, because a sibling of C.T.’s had been 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
physically abused.  The Crawford County Court of Common Pleas awarded 
temporary custody of C.T. to the DJFS on January 9, 2006, and appointed 
appellant, Geoffrey L. Stoll, as the child’s guardian ad litem.  C.T. was placed in 
foster care. 
{¶ 3} On March 20, 2006, the court adjudicated C.T. a dependent child 
and one month later adopted the DJFS’s case plan to address safety issues.  
Agapay filed a motion to modify the dispositional order and to return C.T. to her 
custody.  DJFS moved to extend the period of temporary custody.  On January 17, 
2007, following a hearing, the court denied Agapay’s motion and extended 
temporary custody for an additional six months. 
{¶ 4} On January 23, 2007, Stoll filed a motion requesting that the court 
grant permanent custody of C.T. to the DJFS.  Neither the DJFS nor Agapay filed 
a memorandum opposing Stoll’s motion.  Following a hearing, the court 
terminated the parental rights of Naomi Agapay and committed C.T. to the 
permanent custody of the DJFS on June 28, 2007. 
{¶ 5} The court of appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and 
remanded the matter on the basis that Stoll lacked standing to file a motion for 
permanent custody.  The cause is before this court upon our acceptance of a 
discretionary appeal. 
Analysis 
{¶ 6} In a child abuse, neglect, or dependency case, the court must 
appoint a guardian ad litem to protect the interests of the child.  R.C. 
2151.281(B)(1).  The guardian ad litem is required to “perform whatever 
functions are necessary to protect the best interest of the child * * * and shall file 
any motions and other court papers that are in the best interest of the child.”  R.C. 
2151.281(I). 
{¶ 7} Stoll relies on R.C. 2151.281(I) and 2151.415(F) as authority for a 
guardian ad litem to file a motion for permanent custody.  Appellee DJFS filed a 
January Term, 2008 
3 
brief that agreed with Stoll’s analysis.  Both Stoll and DJFS presented the same 
position at oral argument.  They contend that a guardian ad litem is authorized to 
file a motion for permanent custody because R.C. 2151.281(I) authorizes the 
guardian ad litem to file any motion that is in the best interest of the child, and 
R.C. 2151.415(F) authorizes the court to hear a guardian ad litem’s motion for a 
final disposition, including termination of parental rights.  R.C. 2151.415(F) 
provides: 
{¶ 8} “The court, on its own motion or the motion of the agency or 
person with legal custody of the child, the child’s guardian ad litem, or any other 
party to the action, may conduct a hearing with notice to all parties to determine 
whether any order issued pursuant to this section should be modified or 
terminated or whether any other dispositional order set forth in divisions (A)(1) to 
(5) of this section should be issued.  After the hearing and consideration of all the 
evidence presented, the court, in accordance with the best interest of the child, 
may modify or terminate any order issued pursuant to this section or issue any 
dispositional order set forth in divisions (A)(1) to (5) of this section.” 
{¶ 9} The dispositional orders available in divisions (A)(1) to (5) of R.C. 
2151.415 include the following:  (1) an order that returns the child to the child’s 
parents or guardian, (2) an order for protective supervision, (3) an order placing 
the child in the legal custody of a relative or other interested person, (4) an order 
permanently terminating the parental rights of the child’s parents, and (5) an order 
placing the child in a planned, permanent living arrangement.  Once a motion is 
filed for a disposition under R.C. 2151.415(A), subsection (B) requires the court 
to hold a hearing, giving notice to all parties.  Based upon the evidence presented 
at the hearing, the court must issue an order that is in the best interest of the child, 
and if the court issues an order for permanent custody, the order “shall be made in 
accordance with sections 2151.413 and 2151.414 of the Revised Code.”  R.C. 
2151.415(B). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 10} R.C. 2151.413 and 2151.414 address motions for permanent 
custody filed by a public children services agency or a private child placing 
agency.  R.C. 2151.413 sets forth when a public or private agency may or must 
file a motion for permanent custody of a child, and R.C. 2151.414 sets forth the 
procedures the court must follow.  In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 2007-Ohio-
1104, 862 N.E.2d 816, ¶ 22; In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163, 2004-Ohio-6411, 
818 N.E.2d 1176, ¶ 9. 
{¶ 11} The appellate court concluded that only a public children services 
agency or private child placing agency may seek permanent custody under R.C. 
2151.413 and 2151.414, and a guardian ad litem has no authority to file a motion 
for permanent custody.  Thus, the court held that Stoll lacked standing.  In her 
brief, Agapay agrees with the court of appeals, although she did not appear at oral 
argument to present this position. 
{¶ 12} Because R.C. 2151.415(B) requires a court to issue an order for 
permanent custody in accordance with R.C. 2151.413 and 2151.414 – sections 
that apply to an agency – we must determine whether these sections preclude a 
guardian ad litem from filing a motion for permanent custody, or whether R.C. 
2151.281(I) and 2151.415(F) provide independent statutory authority to the 
guardian ad litem.  When reviewing statutes, we must give meaning and effect to 
the plain meaning of the language as written by the General Assembly.  R.C. 1.42;  
In re A.B., 110 Ohio St.3d 230, 2006-Ohio-4359, 852 N.E.2d 1187, ¶ 33.  And we 
are directed by R.C. 2151.01 to liberally construe the sections in R.C. Chapter 
2151 toward the following purposes:  “To provide for the care, protection, and 
mental and physical development of children subject to Chapter 2151. of the 
Revised Code, whenever possible, in a family environment * * * [and] [t]o 
provide judicial procedures through which Chapters 2151. and 2152. of the 
Revised Code are executed and enforced, and in which the parties are assured of a 
fair hearing, and their constitutional and other legal rights are recognized and 
January Term, 2008 
5 
enforced.”  Moreover, the statutes in R.C. Chapter 2151 must be construed in pari 
materia.  In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163, 2004-Ohio-6411, 818 N.E.2d 1176, ¶ 7. 
{¶ 13} A public children services agency is responsible for investigating 
allegations of child abuse, neglect, and dependency.  R.C. 5153.16(A)(1).  
Because a public children services agency is, in most cases, prosecuting the case, 
the statutory scheme focuses on the agency.  The agency assumes temporary 
custody of the child during the proceedings and will assume permanent custody of 
the child should parental rights be terminated.  R.C. 5153.16(A)(3).  Therefore, 
R.C. 2151.413 dictates when the agency may or must file for permanent custody,1 
and R.C. 2151.414 establishes the proceedings the court must follow before 
granting the motion.  In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163, 2004-Ohio-6411, 818 
N.E.2d 1176, ¶ 8 and 9.  These procedures are safeguards intended to balance the 
fundamental rights of the parent with the state’s authority to intervene to protect 
abused and neglected children.  See In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 2007-Ohio-
1104, 862 N.E.2d 816, ¶ 28.  However, there is no language in R.C. 2151.413 or 
2151.414 that restricts the right to file a motion for permanent custody to the 
public agency. 
{¶ 14} The role of the guardian ad litem, on the other hand, is to protect 
the interests of the child.  R.C. 2151.281(B)(1).  The guardian ad litem must 
“faithfully” discharge that duty.  R.C. 2151.281(A) and (D).  A guardian ad litem 
is given wide latitude to carry out his or her responsibilities on behalf of the child 
and may file any motion necessary to protect the best interests of the child.  R.C. 
2151.281(I).  In addition, R.C. 2151.415(F) specifically authorizes the guardian 
ad litem to file a motion for any dispositional order set forth in R.C. 2151.415(A), 
including (A)(4), an order to terminate parental rights.  Such an order is 
                                                 
1. For example, an agency may file for permanent custody of the child if no relative is able to take 
legal custody.  R.C. 2141.413(B).  The agency must file if the child has been in temporary custody 
for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period.  R.C. 2151.413(D)(1). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
equivalent to an order for permanent custody because once the court orders 
parental rights terminated, permanent custody of the child vests in the public 
children services agency. 
{¶ 15} The appellate court below previously acknowledged a guardian ad 
litem’s standing to file a motion for permanent custody in In re Olmsted (Nov. 27, 
2001), 3rd Dist. No. 5-01-24, 2001 WL 1504242.  In that case, the guardian ad 
litem filed a motion for permanent custody following a period of temporary 
custody, but the agency filed a motion to transfer custody to a relative of the 
child.  The trial court held that the guardian ad litem lacked the authority to file a 
motion for permanent custody.  The court granted the agency’s motion. 
{¶ 16} On appeal, the guardian ad litem argued that the court erred when 
it did not permit her to argue and present evidence in support of the motion for 
permanent custody.  The Olmsted court recognized that the guardian ad litem had 
standing to file a motion for permanent custody.  However, the court concluded 
that, under the circumstances of that case, the trial court properly exercised its 
discretion to refuse to allow the guardian ad litem to present evidence when the 
agency had advocated a less drastic placement.  Therefore, the Olmsted court 
affirmed. 
{¶ 17} In this case, however, the appellate court referred to its stance on 
standing in Olmsted as dicta and refused to follow it.  However, Olmsted clearly 
acknowledged that a guardian ad litem has the statutory authority to file 
permanent custody motions.  This is consistent with the holdings of other Ohio 
appellate districts that have also recognized the statutory authority of a guardian 
ad litem to file a motion for permanent custody.  In re Brian L. (Feb. 25, 2000), 
6th Dist. No. WD-99-038, 2000 WL 216619 (a neglected child’s guardian ad 
litem may petition the trial court to modify an existing dispositional order and to 
issue a permanent custody order);  In re Shepherd (Sept. 29, 1999), 4th Dist. No. 
99CA04, 1999 WL 809760 (a child’s legal custodians may file for a termination 
January Term, 2008 
7 
of parental rights and permanent custody would vest with a public or a private 
child-placement agency); In re Bennett (Nov. 15, 1995), 1st Dist. No. C950035, 
1995 WL 675968 (a court has jurisdiction to hear the motion of a guardian ad 
litem to terminate parental rights). 
Conclusion 
{¶ 18} R.C. 2151.413 and 2151.414 provide when and how a court may 
order permanent custody in a child welfare case.  Although those statutes refer to 
motions filed by a public children services agency or a private child placing 
agency, there is no language that mandates that only an agency may file for 
permanent custody.  R.C. 2151.281(I) and 2151.415(F), construed in pari materia, 
do provide independent statutory authority for a guardian ad litem to file a motion 
to terminate parental rights and to grant permanent custody. 
{¶ 19} Therefore, we hold that a guardian ad litem has authority under 
R.C. 2151.281(I) and 2151.415(F) to file and prosecute a motion to terminate 
parental rights and award permanent custody in a child welfare case.  We reverse 
the judgment of the court of appeals and remand to the appellate court for further 
proceedings consistent with the decision. 
Judgment reversed 
and cause remanded. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and 
CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Starkey & Stoll, Ltd., and Geoffrey L. Stoll, for appellant. 
 
Michael J. Wiener, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee Crawford 
County Department of Job and Family Services. 
 
Leuthold Law Office, L.L.C., and Shane M. Leuthold, for appellee Naomi 
Agapay. 
______________________