Chick v. Chick

R.C. 2151.414/permanent custody best interest of the child manifest weight. The trial court's determination that CCDCFS made reasonable efforts to reunite Mother and children was proper. The trial court considered factors under R.C. 2151.414 for abandonment, lack of action, best interest of the children and custodial history. The trial court's judgment of permanent custody to CCDCFS was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant's argument that the trial court committed reversible error fails where the record supports that the trial court's determination was in the best interest of the children.

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION II APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BECKHAM COUNTY, STATE OF OKLAHOMA HONORABLE DOUG HAUGHT, TRIAL JUDGE ¶ 0 The trial court judgment (1) ordered father — a prison inmate — to reimburse the Oklahoma Department of Human Services for monies allegedly paid to mother for the support of child under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program and (2) set his continuing/future child support obligation at $109 per month. Father appealed and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. Held: The trial court erred in entering a judgment for AFDC reimbursement without being presented evidence to show the amount of AFDC payments to mother. Further, although under Oklahoma's child support statutes (a) appellant's present lack of income and earning capacity due to his incarceration, coupled with his lack of assets, did not mandate that the trial court use zero for his gross monthly income in figuring his child support obligation and (b) it was proper for the trial court to attribute a gross monthly income to him based on the minimum wage for a 40 hour work-week, error occurred in setting the child support obligation at $109 per month because there was no evidence concerning mother's gross monthly income. CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS' OPINION VACATED IN PART; TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT REVERSED IN PART AND MATTER REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in awarding permanent custody of an abused, neglected and dependent three-year-old to a children services agency. Clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that the child's best interest would be served by awarding permanent custody to the agency and allowing the child to remain in the care of the child's foster parents of more than two years, who were interested in adopting the child. The juvenile court also did not abuse its discretion by awarding legal custody of neglected and dependent 12- and two-year-old siblings to unrelated caregivers with whom both had lived for more than two years. The preponderance of evidence supported the court's determination that the children's best interest warranted remaining in their current home, which was able to address the children's particularized needs. Additionally, mother's trial attorney did not provide deficient representation by failing to make a hearsay objection to the foster mother's testimony about the three-year-old's medical diagnoses and prognoses, and the agency did not fail to make a reasonable effort at reunification before moving for permanent custody. Judgments affirmed.

R.C. 2151.414 permanent custody clear and convincing child's wishes best interest relevant factors guardian ad litem waive plain error. Judgment affirmed. The trial court's decision awarding permanent custody of the child to CCDCFS and terminating parental rights was proper. The trial court considered all relevant factors and its best interest determination was supported by clear and convincing evidence. While the child expressed desire to remain with Mother, the juvenile court is charged with the grave responsibility of determining the children's best interest, and this is not solely limited to the children's stated wishes. The record demonstrates Mother has a chronic mental illness and chemical dependency. Mother is repeatedly incarcerated. Mother and Father have neglected the child. Mother and Father are unwilling to provide food, clothing, shelter, or other necessities for the child. Moreover, the court did not err in not sua sponte appointing her a GAL when there is nothing in the record to suggest that Mother is mentally incompetent. A mental impairment does not necessarily mean that the adult is mentally incompetent, requiring the appointment of a GAL. Additionally, Mother never objected to a lack of assistance from a guardian at any time during the proceedings. This court has previously found the failure to object to the lack of assistance from a GAL waives the issue on appeal.