Case Title: In re T.R.

Citation: 2008-Ohio-5219

Docket Number: 20080401

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2008-10-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re T.R., 120 Ohio St.3d 136, 2008-Ohio-5219.] 
 
 
IN RE T.R. ET AL. 
[Cite as In re T.R., 120 Ohio St.3d 136, 2008-Ohio-5219.] 
R.C. 2151.413(E) does not require a children-services agency that files a motion 
for permanent custody to update the child’s case plan with an adoption 
plan before the juvenile court grants the motion. 
(No. 2008-0401 – Submitted July 22, 2008 – Decided October 14, 2008.) 
CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County,  
No. 22291, 2007-Ohio-6593. 
__________________ 
SYLLABUS OF THE COURT 
R.C. 2151.413(E) does not require a children-services agency that files a motion 
for permanent custody to update the child’s case plan with an adoption 
plan before the juvenile court grants the motion. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J. 
I 
{¶ 1} The Second District Court of Appeals has certified this case 
pursuant to Section 3(B)(4), Article IV, Ohio Constitution and App.R. 25.  The 
court of appeals found its judgment to be in conflict with the judgments of the 
Fifth District Court of Appeals in In re McCutchen (Mar. 8, 1991), Knox App. 
No. 90-CA-25, 1991 WL 34881, and the Twelfth District Court of Appeals in In 
re Cavender (Mar. 19, 2001), Madison App. No. CA2000-06-37, 2001 WL 
277245, on the following issue: “Does R.C. 2151.413(E) require a children 
services board to file an adoption plan with the court, prior to the court granting 
permanent custody of a minor child?” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 2} For the following reasons, we answer the question in the negative 
and reverse the judgment of the court of appeals. 
II 
{¶ 3} In December 2003, appellant, Montgomery County Department of 
Job and Family Services – Children Services Division (“the department”), 
removed appellee S.H.’s four children from her home based on concerns about the 
condition of the home and neglect of the children.  Shortly thereafter, the juvenile 
court magistrate granted interim temporary custody to the department.  The 
department developed a case plan for the children pursuant to R.C. 
2151.412(A)(2), with the ultimate goal of family reunification, and presented it to 
the juvenile court.  The court approved the case plan and granted the department 
temporary custody of the children in the meantime. 
{¶ 4} The department twice moved to have temporary custody extended 
while it pursued the goal of family reunification; the juvenile court granted both 
requests.  The department eventually moved for permanent custody of the 
children pursuant to R.C. 2151.413(D)(1), alleging that S.H. had not met all of the 
objectives set forth in the case plan and that permanent custody by the department 
was in the best interest of the children.  The magistrate determined that there was 
clear and convincing evidence to support the department’s request.  The juvenile 
court overruled S.H.’s objections to this decision and granted the department 
permanent custody. 
{¶ 5} On appeal, S.H. argued, inter alia, that permanent custody could 
not be granted, because the department had failed to comply with R.C. 
2151.413(E), which requires a children-services agency that files a motion for 
permanent custody to update the child’s case plan to include a specific plan for 
adoption of the child.  S.H. asserted that this statute required the department to 
update the case plan to include adoption plans before its motion for permanent 
custody was granted and that it did not do so.  The department responded by 
January Term, 2008 
3 
citing several court of appeals decisions, including In re McCutcheon, Knox App. 
No. 90-CA-25, 1991 WL 34881, and In re Cavender, Madison App. No. CA2000-
06-37, that held that the adoption plan update need not be filed until after the 
court grants the motion for permanent custody. 
{¶ 6} The court of appeals agreed with S.H., stating, “The purpose of the 
case plan for adoption required by R.C. 2151.413(E) is to allow the court to 
consider the child’s prospects for adoption if the motion [for permanent custody] 
is granted, which is a matter that directly relates to the best interest of the child at 
issue.”  In re T.R., Montgomery App. No. 22291, 2007-Ohio-6593, ¶ 27.  
Although the court of appeals determined in its analysis of a separate assignment 
of error that the juvenile court’s decision to grant permanent custody was not 
against the manifest weight of the evidence, it nonetheless held that the juvenile 
court erred in granting the motion for permanent custody because the department 
had not complied with R.C. 2151.413(E), and it remanded the cause for further 
proceedings.  Id. at ¶ 40, 42. 
{¶ 7} The court of appeals determined that its judgment conflicted with 
the judgments of the Fifth District Court of Appeals in In re McCutchen and the 
Twelfth District Court of Appeals in In re Cavender and certified the case as a 
conflict to this court.  We determined that a conflict exists. 
III 
{¶ 8} This case requires us to review R.C. 2151.413(E) and determine 
whether a children-services agency must file an adoption plan before its motion 
for permanent custody is considered, or whether it may do so after the motion is 
granted.  When we engage in statutory interpretation, we must first examine the 
plain language of the statute.  See State v. Lowe, 112 Ohio St.3d 507, 2007-Ohio-
606, 861 N.E.2d 512, ¶ 9.  If the language is clear and unambiguous, we must 
apply the statute as written.  Id. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 9} R.C. 2151.413(E) states that “[a]ny agency that files a motion for 
permanent custody under this section shall include in the case plan of the child 
who is the subject of the motion, a specific plan of the agency’s actions to seek an 
adoptive family for the child and to prepare the child for adoption.”  (Emphasis 
added.)  As the emphasized language reveals, the statute plainly requires a 
children-services agency that files a motion for permanent custody to include an 
adoption plan in the child’s case plan. 
{¶ 10} R.C. 2151.413(E) does not state a temporal requirement, though; it 
does not say when such an adoption plan must be added to the existing case plan.  
A related Administrative Code provision, Ohio Adm.Code 5101:2-42-95(D), does 
provide temporal language: “At the time a motion is filed with the court to obtain 
permanent custody of the child, the [children-services agency] shall submit a case 
plan to the court which includes a specific plan to seek an adoptive family * * *.”  
(Emphasis added.)  However, R.C. 2151.413(F) limits the Department of Job and 
Family Services’ rulemaking authority to adopting rules “that set forth the time 
frames for case reviews and for filing a motion requesting permanent custody 
under [R.C. 2151.413(D)(1)].”  Because Ohio Adm.Code 5101:2-42-95(D) 
exceeds the scope of this authority by adding a timeline to the adoption-plan 
process in R.C. 2151.413(E), as opposed to the time for filing a motion for 
permanent custody itself under R.C. 2151.413(D)(1), it is invalid and therefore 
cannot fill the gap left by the statute.  See Amoco Oil Co. v. Petroleum 
Underground Storage Tank Release Comp. Bd. (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 477, 480, 
733 N.E.2d 592 (noting that administrative agencies “must adopt rules within the 
standards provided by the General Assembly in order for the rules to be valid”). 
{¶ 11} We are left, then, with a statute that does not indicate when 
children-services agencies are required to update case plans in these 
circumstances.  The General Assembly could have easily created a timeline in 
R.C. 2151.413(E) by stating that “any agency that files a motion for permanent 
January Term, 2008 
5 
custody under this section shall, at the time it files the motion or before the court 
holds a hearing on the motion, include in the case plan” an adoption plan, but it 
did not do so.  We will apply the statute as written. 
{¶ 12} Accordingly, we hold that R.C. 2151.413(E) does not require a 
children-services agency that files a motion for permanent custody to update the 
child’s case plan with an adoption plan before the juvenile court grants the 
motion. 
{¶ 13} In reaching the opposite conclusion, the court of appeals noted that 
juvenile courts in permanent-custody hearings must weigh the interests of the 
child and that updating the case plan to include adoption plans “allow[s] the court 
to consider the child’s prospects for adoption if the motion is granted, which is a 
matter that directly relates to the best interest of the child at issue.  It defies logic 
to allow the agency to defer filing the adoption case plan required by R.C. 
2151.413(E) until after permanent custody is ordered.”  In re T.R., 2007-Ohio-
6593, ¶ 27. 
{¶ 14} We disagree with that determination for several reasons.  First, 
while a juvenile court reviewing a motion for permanent custody was at one time 
required to consider the child’s probability of being adopted, former R.C. 
2151.414(D), Am.Sub.S.B. No. 89, 142 Ohio Laws, Part I, 198, 240, the current 
statutory framework does not expressly require the court to consider this 
information in making a best-interest determination, R.C. 2151.414(D).  Thus, 
allowing a children-services agency to update the case plan after the decision to 
grant permanent custody is issued does not prevent the juvenile court from 
making the requisite best-interest determination. 
{¶ 15} Second, children-services agencies are required to seek adoption 
for children who are placed in their permanent custody, and they must begin their 
efforts “no later than the date of permanent custody,” which is defined as “the 
date of the court’s filing of its order of permanent commitment of the child” to the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
children-services agency.  See Ohio Adm.Code 5101:2-48-14(D); see also Ohio 
Adm.Code 5101:2-48-05 (requiring children-services agencies to develop and 
implement adoption policies).  A court weighing a motion for permanent custody 
is therefore assured that the children-services agency will seek adoption if 
permanent custody is granted, even if it has not filed a specific adoption plan for 
that child at the time the motion is considered. 
{¶ 16} While it certainly may be helpful for a court to know the agency’s 
adoption plans, the court is not required to factor adoption possibilities into its 
analysis, and the agency will be bound to seek adoption for the child if permanent 
custody is granted regardless of whether the plans are filed before the motion is 
considered.  Thus, interpreting R.C. 2151.413(E) to allow children-services 
agencies to update case plans to include adoption plans after permanent custody is 
granted does not lead to an illogical or absurd result, which we must avoid in 
construing statutes.  See O’Toole v. Denihan, 118 Ohio St.3d 374, 2008-Ohio-
2574, 889 N.E.2d 505, ¶ 56. 
IV 
{¶ 17} R.C. 2151.413(E) requires a children-services agency seeking 
permanent custody of a child to update the child’s case plan to include adoption 
plans, but it does not require the agency to perform this action before the juvenile 
court rules on the motion for permanent custody.  Therefore, we answer the 
certified question in the negative and reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.  
We further note that there is no need to remand this cause to the court of appeals 
because the court has already addressed and rejected the other assignments of 
error raised by S.H., including her assertion that the decision granting permanent 
custody was against the manifest weight of the evidence. 
Judgment reversed. 
PFEIFER, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurs separately. 
January Term, 2008 
7 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurring. 
{¶ 18} I agree that R.C. 2151.413(E) does not specify whether the public 
agency must include a plan for adoption in the child’s case plan prior to the 
permanent custody hearing.  Therefore, I concur with the majority.  However, 
despite the inartfully drafted statute, I believe that the statutory scheme and the 
public policy underlying the 1997 federal amendments, in response to which Ohio 
amended its laws, support an inference that the General Assembly intended to 
require an agency to amend the child’s case plan to include a specific plan for 
seeking adoption prior to the hearing on a motion for permanent custody. 
{¶ 19} The federal Adoption and Safe Families Act, enacted in 1997, Pub. 
L. No. 105-89, 111 Stat. 2115, reflected a “ ‘philosophical shift from reunifying 
broken homes to putting the health and safety of children first.’ ”  Meehan, 
Symposium on In re C.W. (2006), 32 Ohio N.U.L.Rev. 586, 590, quoting Moyle 
& Rinker, It’s a Hard Knock Life:  Does the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 
1997 Adequately Address Problems in the Child Welfare System? (2002), 39 
Harv.J. on Legis. 375, 377.  To that end, the act provides for concurrent planning; 
that is, an agency may engage in reasonable efforts to place a child for adoption or 
with a legal guardian concurrently with making reasonable efforts to reunify the 
family.  42 U.S.Code 671(a)(15)(F).  Federal law also provides that under certain 
circumstances, “the State shall file a petition to terminate the parental rights of the 
child's parents * * * and, concurrently, to identify, recruit, process, and approve a 
qualified family for an adoption.”  (Emphasis added.)  42 U.S.Code 675(5)(E). 
{¶ 20} Ohio’s version of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, enacted in 
1999 and patterned after its federal counterpart, also authorizes concurrent 
planning.  R.C. 2151.412(I) provides that the public agency may prepare a 
supplemental case plan for locating a permanent placement in addition to the case 
plan filed with the court that focuses on family reunification.  When an agency 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
decides to file for permanent custody, it should already have a plan for seeking 
permanent placement and can advise the court of the plan at or before the 
permanent custody hearing.  The Department of Jobs and Family Services most 
likely anticipated this scenario when it adopted Ohio Adm.Code 5101:2-42-
95(D), which provides, “At the time a motion is filed with the court to obtain 
permanent custody of the child, the [agency] shall submit a case plan to the court 
which includes a specific plan to seek an adoptive family * * *.”  (Emphasis 
added.)  
{¶ 21} Unfortunately, the General Assembly was not clear about the 
timing of amending a child’s case plan to include actions to seek an adoptive 
family.  If the General Assembly’s intent was to have the agency amend the case 
plan with an adoption plan by the time of the permanent custody hearing, then the 
General Assembly should clarify the law to expressly require public agencies to 
engage in concurrent planning and be prepared to present the alternative plan to 
reunification when seeking permanent custody. 
PFEIFER, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
__________________ 
Mathias H. Heck Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and 
Carley J. Ingram, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant. 
Law Office of Byron K. Shaw and Byron K. Shaw, for appellee. 
______________________