Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Y.W.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District, Allen

June 12, 2017

IN RE: Y.W., ALLEGED DEPENDENT CHILD. [YANICA WRIGHT - APPELLANT]

         Appeal from Allen County Common Pleas Court Juvenile Division Trial Court No. 2016 JG 33775

          Angela M. Elliott for Appellant

          Mariah M. Cunningham for Appellee

          OPINION

          PRESTON, P.J.

         {¶1} Appellant, Yanica Wright ("Yanica"), appeals the November 30, 2016 decision of the Allen County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting permanent custody of her minor child, Y.W., to the Allen County Children Services Board (the "Agency"). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

         {¶2} Y.W., born in April 2015, is the minor child of Yanica and Derek Jones.[1] (Doc. No. 3). On July 26, 2016, the Agency notified the trial court that it intended to file a complaint on July 27, 2016 alleging that Y.W. is an abused, neglected, or dependent child. (Doc. No. 1).[2] That same day, the trial court held a shelter-care hearing and granted the Agency temporary custody of Y.W. (Doc. No. 22). On July 27, 2016, the Agency filed a complaint alleging that Y.W. is a dependent child under R.C. 2151.04(D). (Doc. No. 4). In its complaint, the Agency requested that the trial court award it permanent custody of Y.W. under R.C. 2151.414(E)(6) and (11). (Id.).

         {¶3} On August 15, 2016, the Agency filed a motion requesting the trial court to waive the Agency's requirement to make reasonable efforts to return Y.W. to Yanica. (Doc. No. 20). In that motion, the Agency argued that the reasonable-efforts requirement could be waived under R.C. 2151.419(A)(2)(e) because Yanica's parental rights were involuntarily terminated as to her other six children.[3](Id.). After a hearing on September 28, 2016, the trial court on October 5, 2016 concluded that Y.W. is a dependent child and granted the Agency's reasonable-efforts motion. (Doc. No. 32).

         {¶4} On August 24, 2016, the Agency submitted its case plan to the trial court. (Doc. No. 25).

         {¶5} On August 1, 2016, the trial court appointed Y.W. a Guardian Ad Litem ("GAL"). (Doc. No. 30). The GAL filed her report on September 22, 2016 recommending that Y.W. remain in the temporary custody of the Agency. (Id.). The GAL filed a "Modification/Change Status Report" on November 2, 2016 recommending that the trial court grant the Agency permanent custody of Y.W. (Doc. No. 37).

         {¶6} After a permanent-custody hearing on November 9, 2016, the trial court on November 30, 2016 granted the Agency permanent custody of Y.W. (Doc. No. 47).

         {¶7} On December 23, 2016, Yanica filed her notice of appeal. (Doc. No. 48). She raises one assignment of error for our review.

         Assignment of Error

         The Trial Court Erred In Terminating Mother's Parental Rights.

         {¶8} In her assignment of error, Yanica argues that the trial court erred in granting permanent custody of Y.W. to the Agency after erroneously concluding that R.C. 2151.414(E)(11) mandates a finding of permanent custody. She further argues that the trial court "erroneously found that a finding of permanent custody was mandated and necessary based solely on past rather than present conditions." (Appellant's Brief at 16). In other words, Yanica argues that the trial court erred in granting permanent custody ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.