Case Title: In re Schaefer

Citation: 2006-Ohio-5513

Docket Number: 20050755

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-10-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498, 2006-Ohio-5513.] 
 
IN RE SCHAEFER. 
[Cite as In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498, 2006-Ohio-5513.] 
Children – Abused and dependent children – Permanent custody – Termination of 
parental rights – R.C. 2151.414 – R.C. 2151.414(D) does not give special 
weight to any of the factors listed therein for determining best interest of 
child – Court need not determine that termination of parental rights is the 
only option. 
(No. 2005-0755 — Submitted November 9, 2005 — Decided October 25, 2006.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Geauga County,  
No. 2004-G-2594, 2005-Ohio-1258. 
__________________ 
 
PFEIFER, J. 
Factual and Procedural Background 
{¶ 1} Damian Xavier Schaefer (“Damian”) was born on July 5, 2003.  
Ten days later, Geauga County Job and Family Services (“GCJFS”) filed a 
complaint in Geauga County Juvenile Court alleging that Damian was abused and 
dependent.  Damian had been born premature and tested positive for cocaine; 
GCJFS alleged that his mother, appellee Amy Schaefer, used cocaine while 
pregnant with Damian. 
{¶ 2} There is no dispute that at the initial hearing on July 24, 2003, 
Schaefer and Doug Morris, Damian’s father, entered pleas of “true” to GCJFS’s 
amended complaint, admitting that Damian was abused pursuant to R.C. 
2151.031(D) and dependent pursuant to R.C. 2151.04(B) and (C).  On August 1, 
2003, the court placed Damian in the temporary custody of GCJFS, which placed 
him with a foster family. 
{¶ 3} On August 25, 2003, the court adopted a case plan for both 
parents, requiring both to obtain and maintain stable employment, attend 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
parenting classes, complete mental-health and drug and alcohol assessments, and 
follow the recommendations of the counselors.  The court additionally ordered 
that both parents participate in individual counseling at least twice per month and 
joint counseling as recommended.  The court determined that Damian should 
remain in the temporary custody of GCJFS; according to the case plan, each 
parent was allowed one supervised two-to-five hour visit with Damian per week.  
The case plan noted that none of the relatives named by the parents were available 
for the possible placement of Damian. 
{¶ 4} The court conducted a review hearing on December 1, 2003.  In its 
December 3, 2003 entry, the court concluded that “the child’s parents have failed 
to achieve the goals in the case plan and that the child would be placed at risk if 
placed in the home of either parent.”  Specifically, the court found that “neither 
parent currently has a stable home; neither parent has completed mental health 
assessments or drug and alcohol assessments as required by the case plan; the 
child’s mother has tested positive for the use of cocaine and the child’s father has 
refused to submit to random drug testing; there has been an incident of domestic 
violence between the parents this review period; neither parent has completed 
parenting classes that have been reasonably available to them; neither parent has 
met on a regular basis with the case worker; and the child’s father has not visited 
with the child on a regular basis.” 
{¶ 5} Another review hearing was held on March 12, 2004.  In its March 
15, 2004 entry, the court again determined that Damian should remain in the 
temporary custody of GCJFS, finding that “neither parent has made much 
progress in achieving the goals of the case plan.”  The court’s findings included 
the following: 
{¶ 6} “Neither parent was able to produce proof that they have 
maintained stable employment during this review period. * * * Neither parent has 
addressed in counseling past problems with their relationship which include 
January Term, 2006 
3 
incidences [sic] of domestic violence.  Neither parent has participated in 
counseling on a regular basis during this review period.  In the weeks immediately 
prior to the Review Hearing, Amy Schaefer’s attendance has become more 
regular.  Doug Morris has not been attending counseling * * * now that he resides 
out of the county.  It does not appear that he has made any effort to initiate 
counseling in the county where he resides that might be available to him at 
reduced cost. 
{¶ 7} “Both parents have tested positive for cocaine use [during] this 
review period.  Neither parent is actively involved in substance abuse treatment at 
this time.” 
{¶ 8} The court held another review hearing on July 19, 2004.  In its July 
26, 2004 entry, the court found that “neither parent has made significant progress 
in achieving any goals in the case plan” and ordered that Damian remain in the 
temporary custody of GCJFS.  Included in the court’s findings were the 
following: 
{¶ 9} “The parents have completed age appropriate parenting classes.  
Visitation between parents and the child has been inconsistent due to parents 
being late for visitations or missing scheduled visits altogether. 
{¶ 10} “Neither parent has been consistent in attending counseling 
appointments.  They have recently begun counseling with a new counselor.  Due 
to the limited amount of time the new counselor has counseled with the parents he 
is unable to make recommendations regarding progress in counseling.  Mr. Morris 
has not completed the recommended psychiatric assessment and neither parent is 
in compliance with following recommendations from Court ordered drug and 
alcohol assessments. 
{¶ 11} “Neither parent acknowledges the issues and problems that caused 
them to be involved with the Court.  They consistently blame others for their 
failure to meet the goals and objectives of the case plan.” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 12} Further, the court scheduled a permanent-custody hearing for 
September 15, 2004 in response to GCJFS’s July 2, 2004 motion for permanent 
custody. 
{¶ 13} On August 24, 2004, Morris’s father, David Morris, and 
stepmother, Brenda, filed a motion for custody of Damian.  With the approval of 
GCJFS, David and Brenda had been engaged in regular visitation with Damian, 
about once per month beginning in May 2004.  The court dismissed the motion 
for custody because David and Brenda were not parties to the proceeding.  On 
September 9, however, the court granted David and Brenda’s motion to intervene. 
{¶ 14} The permanent custody hearing was held on September 15 and 20, 
2004.  The court heard from numerous witnesses regarding Schaefer’s and 
Morris’s progress with regard to the case plan.  The court also heard testimony 
from Damian’s guardian ad litem, Janet Rice.  She testified that Schaefer had 
exhibited positive parenting skills during supervised visits and that Damian 
responded well to her.  She also testified, however, that Schaefer had failed to 
comply with the case plan by failing to get treatment and counseling.  Rice 
testified that Damian had bonded with his foster family and that he was happy, 
expressive, and thriving under their care.  She recommended that the court award 
permanent custody to GCJFS. 
{¶ 15} The foster mother, Katie, testified that she would be willing to 
adopt Damian if GCJFS were given permanent custody.  She testified that she and 
her husband have what she called a “foster-to-adopt license,” through which they 
agreed that if the child needs to be placed permanently, they will adopt. 
{¶ 16} Damian’s paternal grandfather, David Morris, also testified at the 
hearing.  He testified that he had not learned of Damian’s birth until February, 
2004.  David then requested visitation with Damian; GCJFS denied visitation 
until it could complete a home study.  After the home study, David Morris and his 
wife were approved for visitation. 
January Term, 2006 
5 
{¶ 17} David testified that he began visitation with Damian but that 
visitation was minimal due to the distance between his home in West Virginia and 
Damian in Geauga County.  He visited with Damian once a month from May 
2004 through September 2004.  The most recent two visits had taken place in 
Marietta so that David would not have to travel as far. 
{¶ 18} In its September 30, 2004 judgment, the juvenile court granted 
permanent custody of Damian to GCJFS.  The court wrote: 
{¶ 19} “The Court finds that following the placement of the child outside 
the child’s home and not withstanding reasonable case planning and diligent 
efforts by GCJFS to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused 
the child to be placed outside the home, the parents have failed continuously and 
repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed 
outside the child’s home.” 
{¶ 20} The court considered possible placement with David Morris, but 
concluded that it was in Damian’s best interest that permanent custody be granted 
to GCJFS:  
{¶ 21} “The Court finds that prior to the child’s placement in foster care, 
the child’s parents were given an opportunity to propose friends or family 
members to be considered as placement alternatives by GCJFS.  The family 
members that were nominated by the child’s mother expressed an unwillingness 
to serve as a placement option for the minor child.  The child’s father did not 
identify any family members to be considered as placement options for the minor 
child. 
{¶ 22} “* * * 
{¶ 23} “The Court further finds that the child does have a strong need for 
a legally secure permanent placement.  A legally secure permanent placement 
could be achieved by a grant of permanent custody to GCJFS so that the child 
could be placed for adoption with the current foster parents.  There is also a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
possibility that a legally secure placement could be found by placing the child in 
the legal custody of the child’s paternal grandfather and paternal step-
grandmother.  Such a placement could not legally be disturbed without a 
subsequent finding that there was a change of circumstances and that it was in the 
child’s best interest that the custody order be modified.  However, given the 
totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that it is in the child’s best interest 
that the permanent custody motion be granted so that the placement of the child in 
his current foster home can be continued.” 
{¶ 24} The court concluded:  
{¶ 25} “The parental rights and obligations of the child’s parents are 
hereby ordered terminated.  It is the order of the Court that the child shall be 
eligible for adoption without the consent of either parent.” 
{¶ 26} Schaefer appealed that decision.  The appellate court reversed, 
holding that the court’s termination of Schaefer’s parental rights was an abuse of 
discretion.  The appellate court’s determination was not based upon the trial 
court’s findings regarding Schaefer, but rather upon the trial court’s consideration 
of the situation with David Morris: 
{¶ 27} “First, we acknowledge [that] the juvenile court properly found 
that appellant failed to substantially comply with the case plan and that appellant 
failed to remedy the conditions which caused Damian’s temporary custody with 
GCJFS.  However, in this case, GCJFS was also required to present clear and 
convincing evidence that no suitable relative was available for placement.  It 
failed to do so.” 
{¶ 28} The appellate court held that in determining the best interest of the 
child, the juvenile court failed to properly consider placement with David Morris.  
The appellate court found that “extenuating circumstances caused the limited 
relationship and infrequent visits. * * * David’s lack of knowledge with respect to 
January Term, 2006 
7 
Damian’s existence and GCJFS’s rapid filing for permanent custody establishes 
mitigating circumstances for David’s delayed and infrequent visitation.” 
{¶ 29} The court found that GCJFS should have extended temporary 
custody to more thoroughly explore the less drastic alternative to termination: 
“Failure to do so resulted in the inability of GCJFS to supply the juvenile court 
with clear and convincing evidence that David was not a suitable placement 
option.”  The court found that “[i]t was GCJFS’s burden to prove, by clear and 
convincing [evidence], that termination of appellant’s parental rights was not only 
a necessary option, but also the only option.”  The appellate court ordered GCJFS 
“to amend the case plan to set forth a visitation schedule which will allow a 
proper evaluation of David as a possible permanent placement option.  Temporary 
custody is to remain in effect pending further proceedings consistent with our 
opinion.” 
{¶ 30} The cause is before this court upon the acceptance of a 
discretionary appeal. 
Law and Analysis 
{¶ 31} R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) establishes the test for a juvenile court to 
apply in ruling on a motion by a public children services agency for permanent 
custody of a child.  The statute provides: 
{¶ 32} “[T]he court may grant permanent custody of a child to a movant if 
the court determines at the hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this section, 
by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interest of the child to grant 
permanent custody of the child to the agency that filed the motion for permanent 
custody and that any of the following apply: 
{¶ 33} “(a) * * * [T]he child cannot be placed with either of the child's 
parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child's parents. 
{¶ 34} “(b) The child is abandoned. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
{¶ 35} “(c) The child is orphaned, and there are no relatives of the child 
who are able to take permanent custody. 
{¶ 36} “(d) 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.” 
{¶ 37} GCJFS based its motion for permanent custody specifically on the 
element contained in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a).  Thus, in order to obtain permanent 
custody of Damian, GCJFS had to show by clear and convincing evidence that (1) 
Damian could not or should not be placed with his parents and (2) that it was in 
Damian’s best interest that the agency be granted permanent custody. 
{¶ 38} R.C. 2151.414(E) sets forth the elements necessary to satisfy an 
R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) determination that the child cannot or should not be 
placed with his parents within a reasonable time:   
{¶ 39} “In determining * * * whether a child cannot be placed with either 
parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with the parents, 
the court shall consider all relevant evidence. If the court determines, by clear and 
convincing evidence, * * * that one or more of the following exist as to each of 
the child's parents, the court shall enter a finding that the child cannot be placed 
with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either 
parent:  
{¶ 40} “(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, 
January Term, 2006 
9 
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. 
{¶ 41} “ * * * 
{¶ 42} “(4) The parent has demonstrated a lack of commitment toward the 
child by failing to regularly support, visit, or communicate with the child when 
able to do so, or by other actions showing an unwillingness to provide an 
adequate permanent home for the child; 
{¶ 43} “ * * *  
{¶ 44} “(16) Any other factor the court considers relevant.” 
{¶ 45} The trial court made findings touching specifically on R.C. 
2151.414(E)(1) and (4).  As for R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), the court found that both 
parents had failed to follow through with the case plan, “which included goals that 
the parents become independent and self sufficient; that they demonstrate the 
ability to provide care for Damian in a safe and consistent environment by 
completing mental health assessments and following through with the 
recommendations; and that they demonstrate the ability to provide a drug and 
alcohol free home environment for Damian by completing drug and alcohol 
assessments and following through with the recommendations of the 
assessments.” 
{¶ 46} As for R.C. 2151.414(E)(4), the court found that neither parent 
consistently attended visits and that neither parent made any contribution toward 
their court-ordered child-support obligation. 
{¶ 47} The court thus found by clear and convincing evidence that 
Damian cannot safely be placed with either of his parents within a reasonable 
time.  In making that significant determination, the court satisfied the 
requirements of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a); that aspect of the juvenile court’s 
decision is not in dispute. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
{¶ 48} The juvenile court next had to determine whether granting 
permanent custody to the agency was in the child’s best interest.  It is in that 
aspect of the juvenile court’s decision that the appellate court found error. 
{¶ 49} R.C. 2151.414(D) sets forth the factors a court must consider in 
determining the best interests of the child.  That section provides: 
{¶ 50} “In determining the best interest of a child at a hearing held 
pursuant to division (A) of this section * * *, the court shall consider all relevant 
factors, including, but not limited to, the following:  
{¶ 51} “(1) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the 
child's parents, siblings, relatives, foster caregivers and out-of-home providers, 
and any other person who may significantly affect the child; 
{¶ 52} “(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; 
{¶ 53} “(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; 
{¶ 54} “(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; 
{¶ 55} “(5) Whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this 
section apply in relation to the parents and child.” 
{¶ 56} A court must conclude by clear and convincing evidence that an 
assignment of permanent custody is in the best interest of the child. R.C. 
2151.414(E).  The court must consider all of the elements in R.C. 2151.414(D) as 
well as other relevant factors.  There is not one element that is given greater 
weight than the others pursuant to the statute.  The heightened importance that the 
January Term, 2006 
11 
appellate court assigned to R.C. 2151.414(D)(4) is not required by or even hinted 
at in the statute, nor is the trial court required to credit evidence in support of 
maintaining the parental relationship when evidence supporting termination 
outweighs it clearly and convincingly.  The trial court’s opinion demonstrates that 
it considered all the factors required under R.C. 2151.414(D).   
 
{¶ 57} As for the factor in R.C.2151.414(D)(1) regarding “[t]he 
interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's parents, siblings, 
relatives, foster caregivers and out-of-home providers, and any other person who 
may significantly affect the child,” the trial court determined that Damian had 
developed a strong bond with his foster family: 
{¶ 58} “The child has developed a very strong bond and attachment with 
his foster parents.  The foster parents have provided the child with an 
exceptionally nurturing and supportive home environment.  The child’s strongest 
bond appears to be with his stay-at-home foster mother with whom he spends the 
majority of his time.  The foster mother has been attentive to providing for the 
child’s emotional and developmental needs.  * * * By all accounts, the child has 
thrived in the foster home placement.  Despite having been born premature and 
testing positive for cocaine, the child is described as a very happy child that is 
developmentally on target.” 
{¶ 59} The court also addressed the inconsistent visitation of Damian’s 
natural parents and his interaction with his paternal grandparents. 
{¶ 60} As for the R.C. 2151.414(D)(2) factor of “[t]he wishes of the 
child,” the trial court found that at 14 months of age, the child was too immature 
to articulate his wishes, but noted that the guardian ad litem had testified that it 
was in the best interest of the child that permanent custody be granted to GCJFS 
so that the child could be adopted by his foster family. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
{¶ 61} As for the R.C. 2151.414(D)(3) factor of the child’s custodial 
history, the court found that the child had been in the care of the same foster 
family since shortly after his birth. 
{¶ 62} As for the R.C. 2151.414(D)(4) factor of the child’s need for 
permanent placement and the ability to achieve placement without a grant of 
permanent custody to the agency, the court found that Damian had a strong need 
for permanent placement, and that such a placement could be made with David 
Morris and his wife or with the foster family. 
{¶ 63} In considering all the factors and “the totality of the 
circumstances,” the court found that it was in the best interest of the child that 
“the permanent custody motion be granted so that the placement of the child in his 
current foster home be continued.” 
{¶ 64} The court satisfied its statutory duty.  That duty did not include the 
requirement imposed by the appellate court that the juvenile court determine by 
clear and convincing evidence that “termination of appellant’s parental rights was 
not only a necessary option, but also the only option.”  Nor did that duty include 
the requirement that the juvenile court find by clear and convincing evidence that 
no suitable relative was available for placement.  The statute requires a weighing 
of all the relevant factors, and the trial court did that in this case.  R.C. 2151.414 
requires the court to find the best option for the child once a determination has 
been made pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (d).  The statute does not 
make the availability of a placement that would not require a termination of 
parental rights an all-controlling factor.  The statute does not even require the 
court to weigh that factor more heavily than other factors. 
{¶ 65} The issue of the child’s best interest comes at the end of a long 
road in this case.  First, Damian was judged abused and dependent because he had 
cocaine in his system at birth.  None of the relatives named by the parents were 
willing to take in Damian, and he was placed in a foster home.  Then, his parents 
January Term, 2006 
13 
consistently failed to follow the case plan through which they could regain 
custody.  Finally, after over a year passed, the juvenile court found that Damian 
could not be placed with his parents within a reasonable time and should not be 
placed with them.  Only after that determination did Damian’s best interest, as 
statutorily defined, come to the forefront.  Only then was an eventual reunification 
not the paramount concern.  In determining the best interest of Damian pursuant 
to R.C. 2151.414, the juvenile court properly considered all of the statutory 
factors. 
{¶ 66} Since the juvenile court properly applied R.C. 2151.414, we 
reverse the judgment of the appellate court and reinstate the judgment of the trial 
court. 
Judgment reversed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL 
and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
David P. Joyce, Geauga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Brian M. 
Richter, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant Geauga County Job and 
Family Services. 
 
Pamela Walker Makowski, for appellee Amy Schaefer. 
 
McNamara, Hanrahan, Callender & Loxerman, and Amy Marie Freeman, 
for appellee Damian Xavier Schaefer. 
 
Jones Day and Brian G. Selden, urging reversal for amici curiae Eric and 
Katherine M. 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Joseph 
C. Young, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, urging reversal for amicus curiae 
Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services. 
______________________