1  

THEOHIOKINSHIPCAREPROJECT

ReportbytheSubcommitteeonRespondingto

ChildAbuse,NeglectandDependencytothe

SupremeCourtofOhioAdvisoryCommitteeonChildren,FamiliesandtheCourts

January9,2013

EXECUTIVESUMMARY

______________________________________________________________________________

Overthepastfifteenyears,anincreaseinchildremovals,coupledwithadecreaseinthenumberofavailable foster homes and a growing appreciation for relatives as caregivers, resulted in asignificantincreaseinthenumberofchildrenbeingcaredforbykin.Inaddition,federalpolicyhasshifted from an emphasis on non‐relative foster care providers to a preference for relativeplacements.InOhio,asinmanystates,lawandpolicyhavenotkeptpacewiththehugeincreaseinthenumberofchildrenbeingraisedbykinshipcaregivers.

InMay,2011,inordertoaddresslegalandpolicyissuesidentifiedascreatingbarrierstokinshipfamilies and the systems that serve them, the Supreme Court of Ohio Advisory Committee onChildren, Families and the Courts’ Subcommittee on Responding to Child Abuse, Neglect, andDependencyamendeditsoriginalchargetoincludeanewfocusonkinshipcare.Thechargereads:

Incertaincircumstancesitisinthebestinterestofachildtotemporarilyorpermanentlylivewithadbecared forbyarelativeorclose family friend. Collectively, thesecaregiversareknownaskinshipcaregivers. Data from the 2000 U.S. census bureau reports that 86,000 Ohio children have theirgrandparentsastheirsolecaregiver.Thecensusdoesnottrackotherkinshipfamilies.

Laws governing the determination of custody for children have increasingly emphasized theneedforlong‐term,stablelivingsituations.TheU.S.DepartmentofHealthandHumanServicesreports:

Research has shown us that children grow up best in nurturing, stable families.Thesefamilies:

Offercommitmentandcontinuity… Havelegalstatus…toprotecttheirchildren’sinterestsandwelfare Havemembersthatshareacommonfuture

Custody determinations for children may be decided by probate, domestic relations, orjuvenilecourtsdependingonthespecificcircumstancesofafamily.Kinshipcaregiversfindthemselves navigating a complex legal systemwhich to varying degreesmay ormay not

2  

supportastableandpermanentlivingsituationforchildren.Thelegalstandardsappliedbycourtswithjurisdictionoversuchmattersmayresultindifferentoutcomesdependingonthecourtinwhichapleadingisfiled.

Inorder toconsistentlyprovide for thebest interestsofchildrenacrosscourt jurisdictionsandprovideaclearlegalstructureforkinshipcareinOhio,theSubcommitteeonRespondingtoChildAbuse,Neglect,andDependencyischargedwiththefollowingtasks:

1. Tomakerecommendationstoreduceorbettermanageanyinconsistenciesamongcourtjurisdictionsinkinshipcaresituations.

2. To createa clearand consistent legalpathas related to child custody inkinshipcaresituations.

3. Tomakerecommendationsforresourcesandtoolsthatmightbeprovidedtothoseseekingcustodyofchildreninkinshipcaresituations,includingproselitigants.

Pursuanttothischarge,theSubcommitteeconductedin‐depthresearchintothelaws,policies,andpracticesthatgovernkinshipcarerelationshipsinOhioandinotherstates.  TheSubcommitteealsodevelopedstakeholdersurveysandotherstrategiestogatherinputonkinshiplawandpracticesinOhio from judges and magistrates, Public Children Services Agencies (PCSAs), resourceorganizations, kinship caregivers, and adult youthwhowere in kinship care. The Subcommitteereceivedoverfourhundredsurveyresponses,providingawealthofinformationonthelandscapeof kinship care inOhio. In addition, over thirty interviewswere conductedwith individuals andfocus groups, providing even greater detail on promising practices that support kinship familiesandonthelegal,social,andpracticebarriersthatchallengethem.

The Subcommittee focusedmuch of itswork on assessing the various legal pathways to kinshipcare relationships under Ohio law. Its research, augmented by stakeholder input, revealed thatthesepathsdonotalwaysprovide forconsistentoutcomes forkincaregiversand thechildren intheircare.Inaddition,thelegalandproceduralpathsfrequentlyaredifficultforkincaregiverstonegotiateand legal counseloften isnotavailableor financiallyaccessible. Aprimary theme theresearchanddatacollectionidentifiedisthelackofconsistencyamongthelawsthatgovernkinshipcare relationships in Ohio courts with jurisdiction over these relationships: domestic relationscourts,probatecourts,andjuvenilecourts.

To address these inconsistencies, theSubcommitteehasdeveloped recommendations focusedonamendingdiscreteprovisionsoftheOhioRevisedCodethatwereidentifiedascreatingbarrierstoconsistentpractice.Broadly,therecommendationsincludethefollowing:

Amendthedomesticrelationscodeto:o provide standards and a process for “committing a child to a relative,” including

requiringafindingofparentalsuitabilitypriortosuchcommitment;o provide a non‐exclusive list of factors that would support a finding that such

commitmentisinthechild’sbestinterest;o clarifythattherelationshipcreatedbysuchprocessasthatoflegalcustody;

3  

o provide specific criteria for a finding of parental unsuitability thatwould supportlegalcustodybyarelative;and

o providespecificcriteriaforafindingofparentalunsuitabilitythatwouldsupportadomesticrelationscourt’sdiscretionarycertificationofacasetothejuvenilecourt.

Amendtheprobatecodeto:o provideanon‐exclusivelistoffactors,consistentwiththoserecommendedforthe

domesticrelationscode,thatwouldsupportafindingthattheappointmentofaguardianforaminorisintheminor’sbestinterest;

o providespecificcriteriaforafindingofparentalunsuitabilitythatwouldsupporttheappointmentofaguardianofaminor’spersonorthecertificationofacasetothejuvenilecourt;and

o provideguidanceonthe“goodcause”requiredfortheremovalofaguardianofaminor;

Amendthejuvenilecodeto:o provideanon‐exclusivelistoffactors,consistentwiththoserecommendedforthe

domesticrelationscodeandtheprobate,thatwouldsupportabestinterestfindinginrelationtoanorderoflegalcustody;and

o provideanon‐exclusivelistoffactorsthatwouldsupportafindingthatareturntoaparent’scustodyisinthebestinterestofthechild.

ThisreportdetailstheworkoftheSubcommittee,includingtheresearchconductedonkinshiplaw,policy,practicesandresourcesinOhioandnationally,andtheresultingrecommendationsproposedbytheSubcommitteetoimprovekinshipcareinOhio.

4  

_____________________________________________________________________________

THEOHIOKINSHIPCAREPROJECTReportbythe

SubcommitteeonRespondingtoChildAbuse,NeglectandDependency

totheSupremeCourtofOhioAdvisoryCommitteeonChildren,FamiliesandtheCourts

______________________________________________________________________________

Introduction

TheSupremeCourtofOhioAdvisoryCommitteeonChildren,FamiliesandtheCourtsestablishedtheSubcommitteeonRespondingtoChildAbuse,Neglect,andDependencyin2004todetermineifOhiolawrelatingtotheinvestigationandprosecutionofchildabuseandneglectproperlyserveschildrenandfamiliesinneedofgovernmentintervention.TheSubcommitteeconductedan18monthstudyonthisquestion,whichresultedinafinalreportrecommendingthatOhioadopta“ChildinNeedofProtectiveServices(“CHIPS”)statutoryframeworkforrespondingtoreportsofchildabuseandneglectandthatOhioconsideradoptingan“AlternativeResponse”practiceapproachtosuchreports.

AfterasuccessfulpilotandevaluationofAlternativeResponseintencounties,theSubcommitteerecommendedstatewideimplementationoftheapproach,nowcalled“DifferentialResponse(“DR”).”InJune,2011,DRwasstatutorilyauthorizedforstatewideimplementationandtheOhioDepartmentofJobandFamilyServiceswasmandatedtodevelopascheduleforstatewideroll‐out.Todate,49countieshaveimplementedDR.TheSubcommitteecontinuestooverseeDRrolloutactivitiesand,inaddition,continuestosupporteffortstowardenactmentofCHIPSlegislation.

InMay,2011,withtheapprovaloftheAdvisoryCommittee,theSubcommitteeamendeditsoriginalchargetoincludeanewfocusonkinshipcareinOhio.TheSubcommittee’sKinshipCareChargeisasfollows:

Incertaincircumstancesitisinthebestinterestofachildtotemporarilyorpermanentlylivewithadbecaredforbyarelativeorclosefamilyfriend.Collectively,thesecaregiversareknownaskinshipcaregivers.Datafromthe2000U.S.censusbureaureportsthat86,000Ohiochildrenhavetheirgrandparentsastheirsolecaregiver.Thecensusdoesnottrackotherkinshipfamilies.

Lawsgoverningthedeterminationofcustodyforchildrenhaveincreasinglyemphasizedtheneedforlong‐term,stablelivingsituations.TheU.S.DepartmentofHealthandHumanServicesreports:

Researchhasshownusthatchildrengrowupbestinnurturing,stablefamilies.Thesefamilies:

5  

Offercommitmentandcontinuity… Havelegalstatus…toprotecttheirchildren’sinterestsandwelfare Havemembersthatshareacommonfuture

Custodydeterminationsforchildrenmaybedecidedbyprobate,domesticrelations,orjuvenilecourtsdependingonthespecificcircumstancesofafamily.Kinshipcaregiversfindthemselvesnavigatingacomplexlegalsystemwhichtovaryingdegreesmayormaynotsupportastableandpermanentlivingsituationforchildren.Thelegalstandardsappliedbycourtswithjurisdictionoversuchmattersmayresultindifferentoutcomesdependingonthecourtinwhichapleadingisfiled.

InordertoconsistentlyprovideforthebestinterestsofchildrenacrosscourtjurisdictionsandprovideaclearlegalstructureforkinshipcareinOhio,theSubcommitteeonRespondingtoChildAbuse,Neglect,andDependencyischargedwiththefollowingtasks:

4. Tomakerecommendationstoreduceorbettermanageanyinconsistenciesamongcourtjurisdictionsinkinshipcaresituations.

5. Tocreateaclearandconsistentlegalpathasrelatedtochildcustodyinkinshipcaresituations.

6. Tomakerecommendationsforresourcesandtoolsthatmightbeprovidedtothoseseekingcustodyofchildreninkinshipcaresituations,includingproselitigants.

Overthelasttwoyears,pursuanttothischarge,theSubcommittee,withthesupportoftheNationalCenterforAdoptionLaw&Policy,conductedin‐depthresearchintothelaws,polices,andpracticesthatgovernkinshipcarerelationshipsinOhioandinotherstates.TheSubcommitteealsodevelopedstakeholdersurveysandotherstrategiestogatherinputonkinshiplawandpracticesinOhiofromjudgesandmagistrates,PublicChildrenServicesAgencies(PCSAs),resourceorganizations,kinshipcaregivers,andadultyouthwhowereinkinshipcare.

ThisreportdetailstheworkoftheSubcommitteeandtheresultingrecommendationsproposedbytheSubcommitteetoimprovekinshipcareinOhio.

SectionIKinshipCareLawandPolicyReform

KinshipCare:FederalContext

LawandPolicy

Overthepastfifteenyears,anincreaseinchildremovals,coupledwithadecreaseinthenumberofavailablefosterhomesandagrowingappreciationforrelativesascaregivershasresultedina

6  

significantincreaseinthenumberofchildrenbeingcaredforbykin.1A2000DepartmentofHealthandHumanServicesreporttoCongressconcludedthat“[r]elativesshouldbeviewedaspotentialresourcesinachievingsafety,permanence,andwell‐beingforchildren.”

Subsequentfederalandstatelawandpolicyshiftedfromanemphasisonnon‐relativefostercareproviderstoapreferenceforrelativeplacementsovertraditionalfostercare.TheAdoptionandSafeFamiliesActof1997(P.L.105‐89)establishedaKinshipCareAdvisoryPanelwithinthefederalDepartmentofHealthandHumanServicestoprepareareportforCongressonthefrequencyofrelativeplacementsofchildreninfostercaretobereviewedandcommenteduponbyanadvisorypanelonkinshipcare.Thereportthatcameoutofthisdirectiveconcludedthat“[r]elativesshouldbeviewedaspotentialresourcesinachievingsafety,permanence,andwell‐beingforchildren.”2

Morerecently,thefederalFosteringConnectionstoSuccessandIncreasingAdoptionsActof2008,H.R.6893(110thCongress),emphasizedtheidentificationandengagementofextendedfamilieswhenchildrenareremovedfromparentalcare.TheAct,whichamendedtitleIV‐EoftheSocialSecurityAct,requiresstatestoconsidergivingpreferencetoanadultrelativeoveranon‐relatedcaregiverwhendeterminingchildplacements;stateshavediscretiontodeterminewhetherarelativeissuitable,fit,orwillingforchildplacementunderapplicablestatestandards.3Further,theActrequiresstatestouseduediligencetoidentifyandprovidenoticetograndparentsandotheradultrelativesofthechildwhenachildhasbeenremovedfromtheparent(s).Guidelinesdirectthatnoticeprovisionsmayincludeanexplanationthatthechildhasbeenorwillberemovedfromtheparents’custody,detailsaboutoptionsfortherelativetoparticipateinthecareandplacementofthechild,andadescriptionoftherequirementstobecomeafostercaregiverforthechild.

Additionally,theChildandFamilyServiceReviews(CFSRs),federalreviewsofstatechildwelfarepractices,focusattentionontheengagementofrelativesinfamilypreservationactivities,withmeasuredbenchmarksincludingsuchthingsasthepercentageofchildrenfirstenteringcarebeingplacedintoafamily‐basedplacement.4

Theshiftinlawandpolicytowardemphasisonkinshipcareasaplacementoptionhasresultedinanincreaseinkinshipcaregiverplacements—anincreasethathas,inmanyinstances,outpacedthelawsandpoliciesthatgoverntherelationshipsandthesupportsnecessarytosustainthem.

Data

Currently,itisestimatedthatthereareabout2,500,000childrenintheUnitedStatesbeingcaredforbygrandparents,65,000inOhioalone.Whentheterm“kinshipcaregiver”ismorebroadly

                                                            1Judge Leonard Edwards (ret.), Relative Placement in Child Protection Cases: A Judicial Perspective, Juvenile and Family Court Journal 61, NO. 2, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, © 2010, at 6. 2 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,  Administration on Children, Youth and Families,  Children's Bureau,  Report to the Congress on Kinship Foster Care (2000) (http://www.chhs.ca.gov/initiatives/CAChildWelfareCouncil/Documents/Relative%20Placement.pdf)   3 Public Law 110–351, 110th Congress (full text at http://www.fosteringconnections.org/tools/assets/files/Public_Law_110‐351.pdf)  4 For an explanation of CFSR measures and their use in reviews, see Roger Ward, Understanding The CFSR Review Periods and The Permanency Measures (http://www.summitonchildren.ohio.gov/CFSR/UnderstandMeasures.pdf)  

7  

definedtoincludethosewithacloseconnectionwiththechild,thenumberofkinshipcaregiversnationwideishigher.

KidsCountDataCenter,aninitiativeoftheAnnieE.CaseyFoundation,recentlypublishedstate‐by‐statedataonthenumberofchildreninkinshipcare,definedasfollows(notetheexclusionofkinshipfosterchildrenfromthedefinition):

Children inkinshipcare isderivedfromtherelationshiptohouseholder itemsontheCurrent Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement. Children areconsidertobeinkinshipcarewhenallofthefollowingconditionsaretrue:aparentisnotpresentinthehousehold;thechildisnotafosterchildtothehouseholder;thechildisnotahousemate/roommate/borderwithnorelativesinthehousehold;thechildisnot a householder; and the child is not a spouse or unmarried partner of thehouseholder.Theanalysisexcludesgroupquarterspopulation.5

Duringthemeasuredperiod,2009‐2011,2,712,000childrenwereinkinshipcare;thenumberforthatperiodinOhiowas100,000,theninthhighestinthenation.

ChallengesforOhioKinshipCaregiversandChildreninKinshipCare

InOhio,asinmanystates,lawsandpolicieshavesnotkeptupwiththeexplosioninthenumberofkincaregivers.Policyandpracticebasedbarriersforkinshipfamiliesareendemic:asonechildwelfareagencydirectornoted,“[t]heuseofkinshipcarehasrisensorapidlythatchildwelfareagencieshavebeenforcedtomakepolicy,program,andpracticedecisionswithoutthebenefitofasubstantiveknowledgebaseofbestpracticeexperience.”6

AsdetailedinSection2below,therearevariouslegalpathwaystokinshipcarerelationships;theSubcommittee’sresearch,augmentedbystakeholderinput,revealsthatthesepathsdonotalwaysprovideforconsistentoutcomesforkincaregiversandthechildrenintheircare. Inaddition,thelegalandproceduralpathsare frequentlydifficult forkincaregiverstonegotiateand legaladviceandcounselistypicallynotavailableorfinanciallyaccessible.

Thefollowingchallengesareconsistentlynotedinnationalresearchasamongthemostcommon,andmostdaunting, forkincaregivers7. TheSubcommittee’sworkverifiedthatthesearealsotheprimarybarriersforOhiokinshipfamilies:

LackofPreparedness.Manykinshipcaregiversassumeresponsibilityforachild’scareduringafamilycrisisandmaybeunpreparedtomeetimmediateneedssuchasclothing,

                                                            5 The Annie E. Casey Foundation, KidsCount Data Center,  Children in kinship care (2009‐11) (http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?loct=2&by=a&order=a&ind=7172&dtm=14207&tf=995)  6 Edwards, supra, at 7.  7 See  On Their Own Terms:  Supporting Kinship Care Outside of TANF and Foster Care, The Urban Institute   (http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/kincare01/chapt3.htm); Stepping Up for Kids: what government and communities should do to support kinship families, Annie E. Casey Foundation (2012) (available online at http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/Initiatives/KIDS%20COUNT/S/SteppingUpforKids2012PolicyReport/SteppingUpForKidsPolicyReport2012.pdf ). 

8  

space,educationalandmedicalplanning,andemotionalturmoil.

LackofFinancialResources.Kinshipcaregiversfrequentlyfacetremendousfinancialburdenswhentheyassumeresponsibilityforoneormorechildren.Manycaregiversareretiredwithafixedincomeorhaveincomeinsufficienttomeettheneedsofanexpandedhousehold.Manyarealsounawareoffinancialresourcesthatmaybeavailabletothemorarereluctanttoapplyforpublicbenefits.

NeedforMentalHealthorEmotionalSupport.Kinshipcaregiversalsoreportneedingemotionalsupport,andchildreninkinshipfrequentlyneedhelpcopingwithtraumathatresultsfromtheirseparationfromparents,priorabuseorneglect,andanewlivingsituation.Caregiversneedrespitetime,recreation,counselingsupportfromothers.

ChildCare.Affordablechildcareisamajorchallengeformanykinshipcaregivers,manyofwhomworkoutsidethehome.Keepingajobisamajorconcernofmany,especiallyinviewofthefactthattheymayberequiredtotaketimeoffofworkorchangetheirworkschedulestoaccommodatenewchildcareresponsibilities.

Transportation.Manycaregiversand/orchildrenareunabletoparticipateinschoolorotherprogramactivities,orgettomedicalandotherappointmentsduetolackofaccessibletransportation.

EducationAssistanceandSupport.Manycaregiversreportbeingoutofpracticeinassistingchildrenwiththeirstudiesorunfamiliarwithsubjectmatter.Lackofaccesstotutoringserviceshasbeenidentifiedasachallenge.

HealthInsurance.Healthinsurancechildreninkinshipcareisaprimaryissueforkincaregivers.Evenifthecaregiverhashealthinsurance,relativechildrenareoftenineligibleforfamilycoverageunderthecaregiver’splan.Manycaregiversdonothavehealthinsuranceandcannotaffordhealthinsuranceforthechild.Manycaregiversareunawareof,orlackaccessto,optionsforhealthinsuranceforchildrenintheircare.

Legalassistance.Manycaregiverslackaffordablelegalassistancetohelpthemwithdecision‐makingandlegalprocessesrelatedtochildplacementoptionsandagencyproceedings.Caregiversoftenhavetonavigatelegalandagencysystemsontheirown.

RequirementsforFormalCaregivers.Manykinshipcaregiversareunabletomeettheeligibilityandlicensingrequirementsandqualificationsimposedbysomeagenciesinordertobecomeakinshipfostercaregiver,whichcanconstricttheireligibilityforfinancialaidorpreventplacement.

Housing.Lackofaffordablehousingtoaccommodateanexpandedfamilyisfrequentlycitedasamajorchallengeformanykincaregivers.

9  

Section2TheVocabularyofKinshipCare

ExplanationofTerms

Thetermsrelatedtocaregiver/custodialstatusandtherightsandresponsibilitiesinrelationtothechildreninkinshipcarearesometimesconfusingandofteninconsistentlydefinedstatetostate.Thefollowingcaregivertermsarethosemostcommonlyusedtodescribevariousoptionsandlegalstatuses.

Whatis“kinshipcare”?

Thereareanumberofdefinitionsof“kin”andof“kinshipcare.”Thefollowingareespeciallyrelevantinthecontextofthisreport:

◦ “Kinshipcareisthefulltimecare,nurturingandprotectionofchildrenbyrelatives,membersoftheirtribesorclans,godparents,stepparents,oranyadultwhohasakinshipbondwithachild.Thisdefinitionisdesignedtobeinclusiveandrespectfulofculturalvaluesandtiesofaffection.Itallowsachildtogrowtoadulthoodinafamilyenvironment.”ChildWelfareLeagueofAmericaKinshipCareFactSheetathttp://www.cwla.org/programs/kinship/factsheet.htm

◦ “Thetermkinshipcarereferstosituationsinwhichchildrenarecaredforfulltimebybloodrelativesorotheradultswithwhomtheyhaveafamily‐likerelationship,suchasgodparentsorclosefamilyfriends.Therearetwomaintypesofkinshipcare.Private,orinformal,kinshipcareisanarrangementinwhichextendedfamilymembersraisechildrenwithoutchildprotectiveservicesinvolvement.Publickinshipcaredescribessituationsinwhichfamiliescareforchildreninvolvedwiththechildwelfaresystem.Kinshipfostercaredescribesthesubsetofchildwelfare‐involvedchildrenwhoareplacedwithrelatives,butremaininthelegalcustodyofthestate.”SteppingUpforKids:whatgovernmentandcommunitiesshoulddotosupportkinshipfamilies,AnnieE.CaseyFoundation(2012)(http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/Initiatives/KIDS%20COUNT/S/SteppingUpforKids2012PolicyReport/SteppingUpForKidsPolicyReport2012.pdf).

◦ “Kinshipcarereferstoatemporaryorpermanentarrangementinwhicharelativeoranynon‐relativeadultwhohasarelationshiporbondwiththechildiscaringforthatchildintheplaceofitsparents.Kinshipcareincludesrelationshipsestablishedthroughaninformalarrangement,legalcustodyorguardianshiporder,fostercareplacementorkinshipadoption.Kinshipcarearrangementsoftenoccurbecausethechild'sparentsareeitherunableorunwillingtoprovideparentalcarebecauseofdeath,incarceration,domesticviolence,unemployment,poverty,ordrugabuse.AccordingtotheGrandparentsRaisingGrandchildrenTaskForceReport,issuedbytheOhioDepartmentofAging,grandparentsarethelargestgroupofkinshipcaregivers.”TheKinshipCaregiverCoalition,onlinedefinitionathttp://www.med.wright.edu/chc/kinship/index.htm

10  

◦ UnderOhiolaw,specificallyinrelationtotheKinshipNavigatorProgram8andKinshipPermanencyIncentiveProgram,“kinshipcaregiver”isdefinedasfollows:

R.C.5101.85Kinshipcaregiverdefined.Asusedinsections5101.851to5101.853oftheRevisedCode,“kinshipcaregiver”meansanyofthefollowingwhoiseighteenyearsofageorolderandiscaringforachildinplaceofthechild’sparents:

(A)Thefollowingindividualsrelatedbybloodoradoptiontothechild:

(1)Grandparents,includinggrandparentswiththeprefix“great,”“great‐great,”or“great‐great‐great”;

(2)Siblings;

(3)Aunts,uncles,nephews,andnieces,includingsuchrelativeswiththeprefix“great,”“great‐great,”“grand,”or“great‐grand”;

(4)Firstcousinsandfirstcousinsonceremoved.

(B)Stepparentsandstepsiblingsofthechild;

(C)Spousesandformerspousesofindividualsnamedindivisions(A)and(B)ofthissection;

(D)Alegalguardianofthechild;

(E)Alegalcustodianofthechild.

Thisexpansivedefinitioncoversnotonlyenumeratedkinbutthosewhohavebecomeguardiansorlegalcustodiansofachildthroughcourtprocess.

Whattypesofcustodialarrangementsareavailableforkinshipcaregivers?

Althoughthenamesappliedtocaregiver/custodialstatusesnotalwaysconsistentfromstatetostate,thefollowingcaregivertermsarethosemostcommonlyusedtodescribethevariousoptions:

◦ Physicalcustody:Thistermtypicallyreferstotheplacewherethechildlives.Childrenlivewith“physicalcustodians,”whomayfeed,clothe,andcareforthem.Kinshipcaregiversfrequentlyserveasphysicalcustodianforchildren,oftenwithoutalegalstatusthatgivesthemtherighttomakedecisionsforthechildrenintheircare.Absentagencyorcourtinvolvement,parentsretainallparentalrightstothechild,includingtherighttoremovethechildrenfromthekinshipcaregiver’sphysicalcustody.

◦ Legalcustody:Thistermreferstothepersonorentitythathasthelegalrighttomakedecisionsinrelationtochildrenincustody,includingwheretheywilllive.Parentshave

                                                            8 Under RC 5101.851 Statewide program of kinship care navigators, ODJFS has established a statewide program of kinship care navigators to assist kinship caregivers seeking information about or assistance obtaining services and benefits available at the state and local level that address the needs of those caregivers residing in each county. 

11  

legalcustodyoftheirchildrenunlesscustodyisvoluntarilygiventosomeoneelseorunlessacourtvestscustodyinanotherperson,suchasarelativeorkinshipcaregiver,orachildwelfareagency.Legalcustodianshavetheauthoritytoenrollchildreninschool,seekandapprovemedicalcare,andprovideothernecessarylegalconsents.Parentstypicallyretainresidualparentalrightsasdefinedbystatelaworpolicy.

NOTE:Thesamepersonoragencymaynothavebothphysicalandlegalcustodyofachild.Forexample,akinshipcaregivermayhavephysicalcustodyofchildrenwholivewiththem,buttheparent(s)maystillhavelegalcustodyorachildwelfareagencymayhavebeengivenlegalcustodybyacourt.

◦ TemporaryCustody:Thistermcancoverdifferentsituationsinwhichacourtoragencyvestskinshipcaregiverswiththerighttotemporarilycareforandmakedecisionsinrelationtothechildrenintheircare.Somestatesprovideconsentformsthatparentscansigntoconfertemporarydecision‐makingpoweroncaregiversforsuchthingsasseekingmedicaltreatmentorenrollingthechildreninschool.Inothercircumstances,courtsmayawardtemporarycustodydirectlytoakinshipcaregiveronthemotionoftheparent(s),orthecaregiver(s),and/orachildwelfareagency.Thistermmayalsobeusedtodescribeanagency’stemporarylegalcustodialstatusinsituationsinwhichchildrenhavebeenremovedfromtheparentsandreunificationeffortsareunderway;insuchsituations,theagencymayretaintemporarylegalcustodybutplacethechildinthephysicalcustodyofakincaregiverwho,dependingonstatelaworagencypolicy,mayormaynotberequiredtobealicensedfostercaregiver.

◦ Guardianship: Voluntary:Kinshipcaregiversfrequentlyassumelegalguardianshipofachild

withoutterminatingthelegalparents’rights,aswouldberequiredforanadoption.Legalguardianshipisconsideredmoredurablebut,perhaps,morecomplexforthecaregiverthanatransferofcustody.Guardianshipisoftenpursuedwhenkincaregiversandparentswishtoprovideapermanenthomeforthechild,whilemaintainingrelationshipsbetweenthechildandparents,and/orextendedfamily.9Guardianshipsmaybeconferredandoverseenbyadifferentcourtthanajuvenileorfamilycourt,suchasaprobatecourt,althoughthatisnotalwaysthecase.Guardianshipstypicallysuspendtherightsandresponsibilitiesofthebirthparent(s).

SubsidizedKinshipGuardianship:Inmanystates,relativecaregivershavetheoptiontobecomesubsidizedkinshipguardians,aformalstatusinsituationswherereturninghomeoradoptionarenotacceptablealternatives.Inasubsidizedguardianship,legalresponsibilityforthechildistransferredfromthechildwelfareagencytoaprivatecaregiverwhobecomesthelegalguardianofthechild.The

                                                            9 See, generally, resources at Guardianship, Child Welfare Information Gateway  (http://www.childwelfare.gov/permanency/guardianship.cfm)   

12  

agencyisthennolongerinvolvedinthecare,supervision,orcustodyofthechild,butasubsidyispaidtothelegalguardiantoassistwiththechild’scare.Typicallychildagecriteria,timeincustodyrequirements,qualificationstandardssimilartothoseapplicabletonon‐relativefosterparentsapplytosubsidizedkinshipguardians.10

◦ PowersofAttorney:Parentsmayvoluntarilygivelimitedauthoritytodesignated

individualstoactontheparent’sbehalfinrelationtosuchthingsasmedicalandeducationaldecision‐makinginrelationtoachild.Theform,term,andlegalrequirementsforsuchdocumentsaredictatedbystatelaw.Specificallyinrelationtograndparentorkincaregivers,thelawsofseveralstates,includingOhio,provideforlimitedpowersofattorneyorcaregiverauthorizationaffidavitstoprovidedecision‐makingauthoritytograndparents.Ohiolawisdiscussedbelowindetail.

Ohio‐SpecificDefinitionsandPlacementOptions

Ohiolawandpolicydefine“kinshipcare”broadlyandexpressapreferenceforkinshipplacement,wherepossible:

“KinshipCarereferstoatemporaryorpermanentarrangementinwhicharelativeoranynon‐relativeadultwhohasalong‐standingrelationshiporbondwiththechildand/orfamily,hastakenoverthefull‐time,substitutecareofachildwhoseparentsareunableorunwillingtodoso.KinshipCareincludesthoserelationshipsestablishedthroughaninformalarrangement,legalcustodyorguardianshiporder,arelativefostercareplacementorkinshipadoption.Regardlessofthetypeofkinshipcarearrangement,thekinshipcaregivers'voluntarycommitmenttodevotetheirlivestothechildrenintheircareisacourageous,life‐changingdecision.Kinshipcarerepresentsthemostdesirableout‐of‐homeplacementoptionforchildrenwhocannotlivewiththeirparents.Itoffersthegreatestlevelofstabilitybyallowingchildrentomaintaintheirsenseofbelongingandenhancestheirabilitytoidentifywiththeirfamily'scultureandtraditions.”ODJFS,OfficeforChildrenandFamiliesOnlineDefinitionathttp://jfs.ohio.gov/ocf/kinship_care.stm.SeealsoRC5101.85KinshipCaregiversdefined(textofthissectionisatpage7herein).

InOhio, as elsewhere, there are a number of potential placement options for kinship caregivers,ranging from the very informal to the very structured. In relation to the more formal “legal”options, there are varying processes and eligibility requirements for establishment of therelationships.Theseoptionsinclude:

InformalKinshipCaregivers(littleornochildwelfareorcourtinvolvement)Informalrelationships,forpurposesofthisreport,includethosewithno,orverylimited,childwelfareagencyorcourtinvolvement.Manychildren,especiallythoseofpre‐schoolage,have

                                                            10See resources at Subsidized Guardianship, Child Welfare Information Gateway   (http://www.childwelfare.gov/permanency/guard_sub.cfm)  

13  

grandparents,relatives,orpersonswithaclosefamilyconnectionastheirresidentialorprimarycaregiver.Caregiversinthistypeofinformalrelationshiphavenolegalstatusorauthoritytoactonbehalfofachild,exceptwhereaparentempowersthecaregiverthroughapowerofattorneyorotherdocumentprovidingsomelimitedauthority.Suchdocumentstypicallywouldnot,however,providelegalauthorityforthecaregivertoenrollthechildinschoolorapprovemedicalservices.

GrandparentPowerofAttorney/CaregiverAuthorizationAffidavitTorespondtotheneedsofgrandparentcaregiversininformalandusuallyvoluntarycaregivingsituations,theOhiolegislatureenactedlawsprovidingforcourtfilingofpowersofattorneyorcaregiverauthorizationaffidavitsthatprovidetemporaryauthorityforthegrandparenttoactintheplaceoftheparentinmanycontexts,whilepreservingallparentalrightsinrelationtothechild.InOhio,underORC§3109.59etseq,thebiologicalparentsofachildmaygivethechild’sgrandparent(s)apowerofattorney(POA)thatprovidesthegrandparentrightsandresponsibilitiesregardingthechild’scare,physicalcustody,andcontrol.ThePOAiseffectiveuponfilingwiththejuvenilecourtinthecountyinwhichthegrandparentsreside.GrandparentswhoarecaringforgrandchildrenofparentswhoareabsentandunabletobelocatedmayfileaGrandparentCaregiverAuthorizationAffidavit(CAA)withthejuvenilecourt.Thesedocumentsgivegrandparentstheabilityto:

•enrollthechildinschool;•obtaineducationalandbehavioralinformationaboutthechildfromhisschooldistrict;•consenttoallschool‐relatedmattersregardingthechild;and•consenttomedical,psychological,ordentaltreatmentforthechild.

Thegrandparent’sPOAorCAAdoesnot:

•grantauthoritytothegrandparenttoconsenttothechild’smarriageoradoption;•affecttheparents’rightsinanyfutureproceedingconcerningthechild’scustodyortheallocationofparentalrightsandresponsibilitiesforthechild’scare;or•grantlegalcustodytothegrandparent.

TheOhioRevisedCodeprovisionsrelatingtograndparentPOAsandCAAswererecentlyamended;theserevisionswillbecomeeffectiveonoraboutMarch21,2013.TheamendmentsremovethecurrentoneyeartimeperiodafterwhichthePOAorCAAterminatesandeliminatesprovisionsrelatedtosecondorsubsequentPOAsorCAAs.TheamendmentsalsoprovideaprocessbywhichagrandparentwithphysicalcustodyofachildmaypetitionthejuvenilecourtforlegalcustodyiftheparentrevokesorterminatesaPOAorCAAifthegrandparentbelievestherevocationorterminationisnotinthechild’sbestinterest.Acomplaintmustbefiledwithinfourteendaysoftherevocationorterminationinsuchcases;pendingahearingthecourtmaymakeanytemporarydispositionnecessaryforthechild’sbestinterest;thegrandparentfilingthecomplaintmayretainphysicalcustodyunlessthecourtordersotherwise.

TemporaryCustodyUnderORC§2151.011(53),“temporarycustody”isdefinedas“legalcustodyofachildwhoisremovedfromthechild’shome,whichcustodymaybeterminatedatanytimeatthediscretionofthecourtor,ifthelegalcustodyisgrantedinanagreementfortemporarycustody,bythe

14  

personwhoexecutedtheagreement.”

LegalCustodyUnderORC§2151.011(19).“legalcustodyisdefinedas“alegalstatusthatvestsinthecustodiantherighttohavephysicalcareandcontrolofthechildandtodeterminewhereandwithwhomthechildshalllive,andtherightanddutytoprotect,train,anddisciplinethechildandtoprovidethechildwithfood,shelter,education,andmedicalcare,allsubjecttoanyresidualparentalrights,privileges,andresponsibilities.AnindividualgrantedlegalcustodyshallexercisetherightsandresponsibilitiespersonallyunlessotherwiseauthorizedbyanysectionoftheRevisedCodeorbythecourt.”NOTE:Anawardoftemporaryorlegalcustodytoanindividual,PCSA,orPCPAmaybemadebyajuvenilecourtasadispositionofachildadjudicated tobeabused,neglectedand/ordependent,pursuant toRC2151.353. Orders ofdispositionofabused,neglected or dependent child.,whichreadsinpertinentpart:*******[Thecourtmay:](2)Committhechildtothetemporarycustodyofapublicchildrenservicesagency,aprivatechildplacingagency,eitherparent,arelativeresidingwithinoroutsidethestate,oraprobationofficerforplacementinacertifiedfosterhome,orinanyotherhomeapprovedbythecourt;(3)Award legal custody of the child to eitherparent or to any other personwho, prior to thedispositional hearing, files amotion requesting legal custody of the child or is identified as aproposedlegalcustodianinacomplaintormotionfiledpriortothedispositionalhearingbyanypartytotheproceedings.UnderR.C.2151.011(11),“Custodian”meansapersonwhohaslegalcustodyofachildorapublicchildrenservicesagencyorprivatechildplacingagencythathaspermanent,temporary,orlegalcustodyofachild.

RelativeFosterCarePlacementKinmaybelicensedtoserveasfostercaregivers,subjecttoeligibilityrequirementsandqualifications,someofwhichmaybewaivedbythePCSA(ifnotrelatedtochildsafetyandwell‐being).Licensedkinshipcaregiversreceivethesamefostercarepaymentrateasunrelatedfosterparents,andaresubjecttothesameagencyoversightasunrelatedfosterparents.

GuardianshipUnderORC§2111.01(A),“guardian”means“anyperson,association,orcorporationappointedbytheprobatecourttohavethecareandmanagementoftheperson,theestate,orbothofanincompetentorminor.”Inrelationtominors,underORC§2111.046,whenaguardianisappointedforaminorbeforetheminorisoverfourteenyearsofage,theguardian’spowercontinuesuntilthewardarrivesattheageofmajority,unlesstheguardianisremovedforgoodcauseorunlessthewardselectsanothersuitableguardian.UnderORC§2111.042,thecourtmayappointaregularprobatecourtinvestigatortoinvestigatetheneedfor,orthecircumstancesof,theguardianshipandtofilewiththecourtareportofitsinvestigation.

Adoption

Adoptionisalegalprocessthatconfersallparentalrightsandresponsibilitiesontheadoptive

15  

parentandterminatesthoserightsandresponsibilitiesinthebiologicalparent.UnderORC§5103.161anagencyshallconsidergivingpreferencetoanadultrelativeoveranonrelativecaregiverwhendetermininganadoptiveplacementforthechild.Theadultrelativemustsatisfyallrelevantchildprotectionstandards.Inaddition,theagencymustdeterminethattheplacementisinthebestinterestsofthechild.

Differentcourtshavejurisdictionoverthevarioustypesofkinshiprelationships;further,akinshipaction may begin in one court and be transferred to another under certain circumstances.Generally,however:

Domesticrelationsorfamilycourtshandlesituationsinwhichcustodyisgiventorelativeaspart of divorce proceedings when neither parent is deemed to be a suitable residentialparent.

Juvenilecourtshavejurisdictionin:◦ cases in which a Public Child Placing Agency seeks kin placement (either as an

approved or licensed caregiver) of a child in the agency’s temporary or legalcustody;

◦ casesinwhichkincaregiversseeklegalortemporarycustody;and

◦ filingsofGrandparentPowersofAttorneyorCaregiverAuthorizationAffidavits. Probatecourtshavejurisdictionoverkinshipadoptionsandguardianships

Section3TheWorkoftheSubcommittee

IssueIdentificationandaResponsiveResearchPlan

Earlyon,theSubcommitteeidentifiedanumberofissuesonwhichtofocusresearchandstudy:

• Theneedforcaregiveraccesstoinformation,resources,andlegalassistance.• Identificationofbarrierstocaregiveraccesstofinancialsupport.• Confusionastovariouskinshipstatuses:formal/informal;thosearisingindomestic

relationscourtasopposedtojuvenilecourt;theuseofguardianshipsinprobatecourt;anddistinctionsbetweentemporaryandlegalcustodyincasesarisingunderjuvenilecourtjurisdiction.Whichstatusandwhatcourtisappropriateinspecificsituations?

• Inconsistentlegalstandardsapplicabletocourtsgrantingandterminatingkinshipcarerelationships.

• Confusionastokinshipcaregiverrightsandresponsibilitiesandparents’residualrightsundereachstatus.

• Inconsistencyastoavailableresourcesandsupportscounty‐to‐county.• Licensurestandardsapplicabletokinshipfostercaregiversthatmaybeunduly

burdensome,impactfamilyautonomy,andbeinconsistentcountytocounty

Researchwasconductedontheseissuesthroughtheseprocesses:

aliteraturereviewofkinshipcarearticlesandstudies; reviewoffederal,state,andOhiokinshiplawsandpolicieswithemphasis,inOhio,on

statutesgoverningrelativeorkinshipplacements; areviewofOhiocasesapplyingkinship‐relatedlawsinthevariouscourtswithjurisdiction;

and

16  

astudyofresourcesavailabletoOhiokinshipfamilieslocally,statewide,andnationally.

Inadditiontoitsbroad‐basedresearch,theSubcommitteesoughtstakeholderfeedbackonthelaws,policies,andpracticesassociatedwithOhiokinshipcaregiversthroughsurveysofjudgesandmagistrates,PublicChildrenServiceAgencies,resourceproviders,kincaregivers,andadultyouthwhowerecaredforbykin.Tosupplementthesurveys,focusgroupswereheldwithvariousstakeholdergroups,andfollow‐uptelephoneinterviewswereconductedwithsurveyresponderswhoindicatedawillingnesstoprovideadditionalfeedback.

ResearchProcessandResults

LiteratureReview

Theliteraturereviewfocusedonarticles,researchreportsandothermaterialsonsuchtopicsasfederallawsrelatingtorelativeplacements,statelawsenactedpursuanttosuchfederallegislation,resourcesavailabletokinshipcaregivers,policiesandpracticesassociatedwithkinshipcareplacements,andkinshipoutcomes.Thefollowingsourceswereamongthosemostpertinenttotheproject(acompletelistofresourcematerialsreviewedisatAppendix1):

U.S.DepartmentofHealthandHumanServices,AdministrationforChildrenandFamilies,AdministrationonChildren,YouthandFamilies,Children'sBureau,ReporttotheCongressonKinshipFosterCare(2000)(availableat:http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/kinr2c00/)TheReporttoCongressonKinshipFosterCaresummarizedthen‐currentknowledgeaboutkinshipcare,includingallavailabledataonthespecificissuesraisedbyCongressinASFA:

theextenttowhichchildreninfostercareareplacedwithrelatives, costsandsourcesoffundsforkinshipcare, Statepoliciesregardingkinshipcare, characteristicsofkinshipcaregiversandtheirhouseholds, conditionsunderwhichchildrenenterkinshipcare, servicesprovidedtokinshipcaregiversandtobirthparents, birthparents'accesstotheirchildreninkinshipcare,and permanencyplansforchildreninkinshipcare.

The report expanded upon Congress' initial request for kinship data and information in the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1998 by providing information on private kinship care in recognition that policy changes regarding public kinship care are likely to affect private care. The report also provided a deeper understanding of kinship care by comparing policies related to public kinship and non-kin foster care and describing the experiences of families in each group.

JudgeLeonardEdwards(ret.),RelativePlacementinChildProtectionCases:AJudicialPerspective,JuvenileandFamilyCourtJournal61,no.2(Spring),NationalCouncilofJuvenileandFamilyCourtJudges,©2010Thispaperfocusesprimarilyontheissueofwhetherstatesshouldgiverelativespreferenceovernon‐relativesinchildplacementsand,ifso,howbesttodoso.Theauthorexaminestheshiftinstateandfederalpoliciessincethe1980sfromnon‐relativefosterplacementstowardfavoringrelatives(“kinshipcare”),notingtheproblemsthatarisewhendelaysoccurinimplementingpolicies.Delaysmayresult,forexample,whenrelativesarenotawarethatchildprotectionproceedingsarepending;furtherchildprotectionandcourtsystemsoftenexcluderelativesfromplacementconsiderationevenwhentheyhavenotice.Insuchcases,whenrelativesrequest

17  

placementafterachildhasbeeninafosterplacementforanextendedperiod,childwelfareagenciesandcourtsstrugglewithcompetinginterestsofrelatives,fosterparents,andchildren.

ThepaperalsodescribeschildplacementhistoryintheUnitedStatesandtheemergenceofrelativepreferenceasasystemicgoal.Discussionincludesreasonsforpoliciespreferringrelativeplacementsandthe“whenandwhy”ofstateandfederalpreferencelegislation.Alsoincludedisanexaminationofchangesinthechildprotectionsystemthatcouldresultinbetterengagementofrelativesincourtprocessesandadiscussionofproceduralbarriersfacingrelativeswhoseekplacement,whichincludepre‐placementassessments,criminalrecordschecks,andhomestudies.Finally,theauthoraddresseshowjudgescanleadchangeinproceduresandpracticestoengagerelativesattheearlieststageandprovideafairchanceforthemtobeinvolvedinachild’slife.

ThePewCharitableTrusts,TimeforReform:SUPPORTRELATIVESINPROVIDINGFOSTERCAREANDPERMANENTFAMILIESFORCHILDREN©2007Thisarticlereviewsdata,research,andpoliciesassociatedwithkinshipcareandarguesforreformtobettersupportkinshipfamilies.Morethan500,000childrenintheUnitedStatesarecurrentlyinfostercarewaitingforsafe,permanentfamiliesandapproximatelyone‐quarterofthesechildren—morethan124,000—livewithrelatives,placementsthatresearchhasdemonstratedtobesafe,stablealternativestonon‐relativefostercare.Fornearly20,000ofthesechildreninrelativefostercare,acourthasdeterminedthatreunificationandadoptionarenotviableoptions.Currentfederalpolicyforcesrelativecaregiverstomakeahardchoice:receiveroomandboardasafosterfamilyunderstatesupervisionandauthority,orbecomepermanentguardiansandpotentiallyforfeitfinancialassistance.

Researchdemonstratesthatrelativesareavaluableresourcefortemporaryfostercareandforpermanentplacementswhenreunificationisnotpossible.Therefore,federalfinancingpolicyshouldsupportservicestopreventchildrenfrombeingplacedinfostercareandcreateincentivestohelpchildrenleavefostercarethroughreunification,adoption,orrelativeguardianship.Subsidizedguardianshipisawin‐winalternativetofostercarewhenreunificationoradoptionisnotpossibleorinachild’sbestinterest.

AnnieE.CaseyFoundation,KinshipCare:SupportingThoseWhoRaiseOurChildren©2005Thispaperprovidesbackgroundinformationaboutkinshipcare,andincludesexamplesofinnovativeprogramsandpolicies,aswellasadiscussionofchallengestoandstrategiesforstrengtheningkinshipfamilies.Thepaperalsoincludesdata(from2004)onthenumberofchildreninkinshipcareandtheirdemographics.

Discussionofpromisingpracticesisorganizedaroundselectedcoreresultsfrom theFoundation’s“MakingConnections”initiativetohighlightwaysthatinnovativekinshippoliciesandprogramscontributetooverallgoalsofplace‐basedfamilystrengthening.

Children’sDefenseFund,SampleStateLegislationNeededtoImplementtheFederalKinshipGuardianshipAssistanceOptionUnderTitleIV‐EoftheSocialSecurityAct,2010Thisarticle,preparedincollaborationwiththeAmericanBarAssociationCenteronChildrenandtheLaw,outlinesmodellegislationreflectingthecomponentsforsubsidizedkinshipguardianshiprequiredbythefederalFosteringConnectionstoSuccessandIncreasingAdoptionsActof2008inorderforastateortribetooperateafederallysupportedkinshipguardianshipassistanceprogramunderSection101ofthatlaw.Thesamplelegislationisintendedasatoolforpolicymakers,administratorsandadvocatesto

18  

useinadvocatingfortheirstatestopursuetheoptionofafederallysupportedkinshipguardianshipprogram.

Federal,State,andOhioLawsandPoliciesGuidingKinshipCare

RelativePreferenceStatutesTitleIV‐EoftheSocialSecurityActrequiresthatstates“considergivingpreferencetoanadultrelativeoveranonrelatedcaregiverwhendeterminingplacementforachild,providedthattherelativecaregivermeetsallrelevantStatechildprotectionstandards,”intoreceiveFederalpaymentsforfostercareandadoptionassistance.11TitleIV‐EalsorequiresthatStatesdiligentlyidentifyandprovidenoticetograndparentsandotheradultrelativesofachildhasbeenorisbeingremovedfromparentalcustody,explaintheoptionsarelativehasforparticipatinginthechild’scareandplacement,anddescriberequirementstobecomeafosterparent.12 NationalSnapshotAsofJuly,2010,forty‐oneStatesincludedprovisionsrequiringpreferenceforrelativeplacementsinstatute.InnineStates,thelawspecificallyrequiresStateagenciestomakereasonableeffortstoidentifyandlocateachild’srelativewhenout‐of‐homeplacementisneeded.Statelawinfourstatesdoesnotaddresstheissueoffostercareplacementofchildrenrelativesintheirstatutes.Theremainingstates’statutescontainpermissivelanguagesuchas"mayconsider"whenaddressingplacementwithrelatives. Ohio

Ohio’spoliciesvaluekeepingchildrenwithfamilyandthosewithwhomthechildhasaconnection,whenachildisnotabletolivewithhisorherparents.OhioAdministrativeCode§5101:2‐42‐05statesinpertinentpart:

(A)Whenachildcannotremaininhisorherownhome,thepublicchildrenservicesagency(PCSA)orprivatechildplacingagency(PCPA)shallexplorebothmaternalandpaternalrelativesregardingtheirwillingnessandabilitytoassumetemporarycustodyorguardianshipofthechild.Unlessitisnotinthechild’sbestinterest,thePCSAorPCPAshallexploreplacementwithanon‐custodialparentbeforeconsideringotherrelatives.

(B)Ifasuitablerelativeisnotavailabletoassumetemporarycustodyorguardianship,thePCSAorPCPAshallexploreplacementwithasuitablenonrelativewhohasarelationshipwiththechildand/orfamily.

Ohio’spolicyforrelativeplacementpreferenceandprocessforrelativeidentificationisdetailedonlineathttp://jfs.ohio.gov/ocf/placementservices.stm.Thepolicyemphasizesthatpublicchildrenservicesagencies“strivetoworkwithrelativeswhoarewillingandabletoassumecustodyofachildandanysiblingstoexplorethisoptionfirstinordertopreventachildfrom

                                                            11 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(19) (LexisNexis 2010).  12 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(29) (LexisNexis 2010), as amended by the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008.  

19  

comingintoanagency’scare.Ohioagenciesmustworkwiththefamilytoexplorerelativeoptionsandconducttheassessmentstodeterminetheirwillingnessandabilitytocareforthechild.”

Inrelationtoprocessforidentificationofrelativeresources,effortsbegin“withtheagency’sfirstinvolvementwiththefamilytofacilitatethefamilyworkingtogethertosupportoneanotherandassurethesafetyofthechild.Ifachildisnotabletoremainwithhisorherparents,agenciesarerequiredtoconductadiligentsearchforidentifiedrelativesandnotifythemwithinthirtydaysofthechild’sremovalsothattheyhavetheabilitytobeconsideredasaplacementresource.Thepreferenceisforthechildtohavestabilitythroughapermanentarrangementsuchasarelativeassuminglegalcustody.”

Ifarelativecannotassumelegalcustody,non‐relativekinmayalsobeconsidered.Ifnorelativesorkinareavailabletoassumelegalcustody,thePCSAwillpetitionthecourtfortemporarycustodyinordertooverseetheplacementofthechildwitheitherrelatives,kin,oralicensedfosterfamily.

FinancialandOtherSupportsforKinshipCaregivers

NationalSnapshot

FifteenstatesandtheDistrictofColumbiaproviderelativeswithbenefitstohelpoffsetthecostofcaringforaplacedchild.Statutesin13statesspeaktofostercarepaymentsand/orfinancialsupportforkinshipcaregivers.Insuchstates,ifarelativemeetsthefosterparentqualifications,heorshemayreceivethefullfostercarepaymentrateandallotherbenefitsandservicesavailabletofosterparents.13

Financialprogramsandothersupportsforcaregiverswhoarenotqualifiedasfosterparentsvaryfromstatetostate.Theseprogramsmayinclude14:

• KinshipNavigatorPrograms:StateinitiativesfundedbytheU.S.DepartmentofHealthandHumanServices,AdministrationforChildren,YouthandFamilies,Children’sBureau’sFamilyConnectionKinNavigatorgrants.Theseprogramsprovideinformation,referral,andfollow‐upservicestograndparentsandotherrelativesraisingchildrenandhelpkinshipcaregiverswithaccesstoresourcessuchasTANF,Medicaid,SNAPbenefits,andlegalassistance.

• SupportGroupPrograms:Supportgroupsforkincaregiversandthechildrenintheircareareaneffectivewayofsharinginformation,resourcesandprovidingpeersupport.

• HousingPrograms:Affordablehousingforkinshipcaregivershasbeencitedasachallengebymanysources.WiththeassistanceofFederalandStatefunding,somecommunitieshaveestablishedmultigenerationalhousingforkinshipcaregiverswhohavelimitedfinancialresources.

Ohio

                                                            13 Child Welfare Information Gateway, Kinship Caregivers and the Child Welfare System (2010)( available at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_kinshi/f_kinshi4.cfm) 14 Child Welfare Information Gateway, Working With Kinship Caregivers (2012) (available at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/kinship.pdf).  This resource includes examples of state programs in various service areas.     

20  

TheOhioResourceGuideforRelativesCaringforChildrenoutlinesfinancialandotherresourcesavailabletokinshipcaregivers.(http://www.odjfs.state.oh.us/forms/file.asp?id=1779&type=application/pdf).Amongthefinancialresourcesavailableare:

TheKinshipPermanencyIncentive(KPI)Program,whichprovidestemporarysupportforminorchildrenwhoareinthelegalandphysicalcustodyofgrandparents,relatives,orotherkinshipcaregivers.Theprogramprovideseligiblecaregiverstime‐limitedincentivepayments,includinganinitialpaymenttodefraythecostsofplacementandsubsequentpaymentsatsixmonthintervalstosupportstabilityoftheplacement.Detailsonqualificationsandpaymentsarefoundat:http://jfs.ohio.gov/families/kinship/KPIBrochure.pdf

OhioWorksFirst:Underthisprogram,kinshipcaregiversmaybeeligibleformonthlycashassistance.Caregiversmustberelatedbybloodormarriageorthelegalcustodianorguardianofthechild.Assistancemaybeforthechildonly,oralsoincludeabenefitforthecaregiver.Requirements,suchascooperationwithchildsupportrequirementstoholdtheparentsfinanciallyresponsible,mayapply.Fulldetailsarefoundat:http://jfs.ohio.gov/factsheets/OWF.pdf

FoodAssistance:EligiblekinshipcaregiverscanusefoodassistancebenefitstobuyfoodatparticipatingretailersanywhereintheUnitedStates,usingaplasticdebitcard.Informationisavailableathttp://jfs.ohio.gov/ofam/foodstamps.stm.

PubliclyFundedChildCare:Eligiblekinshipcaregiversmayreceivefinancialassistanceforchildcarewhilethecaregiverisworkingorinanapprovedtrainingprogram.Detailsareat:http://jfs.ohio.gov/factsheets/childcare.pdf

AdoptionAssistance:Kinshipcaregiverswhoadopttheirkinchildrenwithspecialneedsmaybeentitledtooneormoretypesofsubsidiesunderfederalorstatelaw.DetailsonadoptionassistanceprogramsinOhioarefoundat:http://www.nacac.org/adoptionsubsidy/stateprofiles/ohio.html

AdoptionbyKinshipCaregivers

NationalSnapshotStateagenciesinsevenstatesmustgivepreferencetorelativeswhenmakingadoptiveplacementsforchildrenintheircustody;ifthechildhasbeenplacedinfostercarewithanonrelativeforasignificantperiodoftimewhenheorshebecomesavailableforadoption,fourstatesgivethenonrelativefosterparentfirstpreferencetoadopt.

Insome31states,ifparentmakesadirectplacementwitharelative,thelawsprovideforastreamlinedadoptionprocess,whichmayincludenotrequiringapre‐placementhomestudyunlessorderedbythecourt.Twenty‐onestatesrequireacriminalrecordscheckofadoptingrelativesandanyotheradulthouseholdmember.

Ohio

21  

UnderORC§5103.161anagencyshallconsidergivingpreferencetoanadultrelativeoveranonrelativecaregiverwhendetermininganadoptiveplacementforthechild.Theadultrelativemustsatisfyallrelevantchildprotectionstandards.Inaddition,theagencymustdeterminethattheplacementisinthebestinterestsofthechild. OhioRelativeCaregiverStatutesReview

TheSubcommitteeelectedtofocusontheprovisionsofOhiolawthatspeaktothecreation,oversight,modification,andterminationofkinshipcaregiverrelationshipsinboththepublicandtheprivatecontext,andspecificallyonlawandpracticeinthedomesticrelations,probate,andjuvenilecourts,asfollows:

DomesticRelations/FamilyCourt:StandardandprocessforawardofcustodytoarelativeunderORC§3109.04(D)(2)(appropriatenessofuseof“bestinterest”standard)

ProbateCourt:o Standards/ProcessforestablishmentofguardianshipunderORC§2111.02o StandardsforappointmentofaguardianofminorunderORC§2111.12o Clarificationofterm“removedforgoodcause”underORC§2111.46o Clarificationofappointmentwhenparentsfound“unsuitable”orchild’s“interests

willbepromoted”underORC§2111.06o Standardformodificationofguardianshipatparent’smotion

JuvenileCourt:

o IssuesrelatedtoGrandparentPowersofAttorneyunderORC§3109.51andCaregiverAuthorizationAffidavitsunderORC§3109.65.

o Variousprocessissuesunderjuvenilecodestatutesrelatedtotemporaryandlegalcustody

o Clarificationoftermsandstandardsrelatedtotemporaryandlegalcustody

AfulldiscussionoftheissuesandrelatedstatutoryreformoptionsconsideredbytheSubcommitteeisatSection4herein;recommendationsforamendmentstothesesectionsareatSection5.

CaseReview

OhiocaselawresearchfocusedonlegalissuesandinconsistenciesthatwereidentifiedthroughpreliminaryresearchonOhiostatutesandsubsequentfeedbackfromstakeholdersurveys.Thefollowingissueswereidentifiedforcasereview:

“BestInterest”analysisapplicableindomesticrelationsdivorcecases.Asnotedabove,concernwasexpressedbySubcommitteemembersandsurveyrespondersrelatingtothestandardforplacementofachildwitharelativeratherthanaparentindomesticrelationscasesunderORC§3109.04(D)(2),whichreads:

Ifthecourtfinds,withrespecttoanychildundereighteenyearsofage,thatitisinthebestinterestofthechildforneitherparenttobedesignatedtheresidentialparentandlegalcustodianofthechild,itmaycommitthechildtoarelativeofthechildorcertifyacopyofitsfindings,togetherwithasmuchoftherecordandthefurther information, innarrative formorotherwise, that it considersnecessaryor as the juvenile court requests, to the juvenile court for furtherproceedings,

22  

and, upon the certification, the juvenile court has exclusive jurisdiction.(emphasisadded)

Incustodydisputesbetweenparentsandnon‐parentsthatariseinthejuvenilecourt,ashowingofparentalunsuitabilitygenerallyhasbeenrequiredtosupportagrantofcustodytothenon‐parent.Ithasbeennoted,however,that“whenthecustodydisputeoriginatesinadivorce,theneedforafindingofunsuitabilityagainstthebiologicalparentsbeforeawardingcustodytoanon‐parentrelativeislessclear.”15Researchontheapplicationofthe“bestinterest”standardinthecontextofallocationofparentalrightsunderscoredthestatutoryanomalywithestablishedcaselaw.TheSupremeCourtofOhio,inthecaseInrePerales, 52OhioSt.2d89,369N.E.2d1047(1977)notedOhiocourts’policyofeffectuatingthefundamentalrightsofparentsbylimitingthecircumstancesunderwhichthestatemaydenyparentscustodyoftheirchildren,noting“[W]ehaveheldthatinachildcustodyproceedingbetweenaparentandnonparent,acourtmaynotawardcustodytothenonparent‘withoutfirstdeterminingthatapreponderanceoftheevidenceshowsthattheparentabandonedthechild;contractuallyrelinquishedcustodyofthechild;thattheparenthasbecometotallyincapableofsupportingorcaringforthechild; orthatanawardofcustodytotheparentwouldbedetrimentaltothechild.’” Id.at{¶ 17}.InPerales,thetrialcourtappliedthe“bestinterest”standardofORC§3109.04(D)(2),althoughthecasearoseinajuvenilecourtdisputebetweenaparentandanon‐parent.TheSupremeCourtheldthat“sincetheissueofcustodyinthatcasedidnotarisefromadivorceproceedingbutratherfromadisputebetweenaparentandanonparent,thejuvenilecourterredinapplyingthebestintereststandardofR.C.3109.04.”Peralesthusdidnotdirectlyaddressthequestionastowhetheranunsuitabilityshowingisrequiredincustodydisputesbetweenparentsandnon‐parentsarisingindivorcecases,althoughthecourtupheldtheapplicationofabestintereststandardinsofarasitappliestocustodydisputesarisingfromdivorceactionswherethedisputeisbetweenthechild'sparents,andwhere“[b]othoftheparentsmaybeeminentlyqualifiedtoraisethechild.”Thecourtthereforeconcludedthat“afindingofunsuitabilitywouldnotbeappropriateandthewelfareofthechildwouldbetheonlyconsiderationbeforethecourt.”

Inalatercase,InreHockstock,98OhioSt.3d238;2002Ohio7208;781N.E.2d971(2002),theSupremeCourtofOhioreviewedadecisionofadomesticrelationscourtawardingcustodyofachildtomaternalgrandparentsratherthanthebiologicalmotherinthecontextofaparentageaction.Thegrandparentsreceivedanorderoftemporarycustodyfromthedomesticrelationscourt,inagreementwiththebiologicalmotherinordertogivethemothertheopportunitytoprovideappropriatelivingarrangements.Subsequently,afterherfailuretodoso,additionaltemporaryorderswereenteredand,ultimatelycross‐motionsforlegalcustodywerefiled.Thetrialcourt,applyingthebestintereststandard,gavecustodytothegrandparents.Thetrialcourtdidnotmakeafindingofunsuitabilityinrelationtothemother.Themotherdidnotappeal,butlaterfiledamotionforreallocationofparentalrights,whichwasdeniedunderapplicationofthebestintereststandard.Themotherappealed.

Onappeal,theOhioSupremeCourtheldthatthetrialcourtshouldhaveappliedtheunsuitabilitystandardindecidingtheinitialmotionforlegalcustody,notingthataftercustodyisgiventoanon‐parentafteraninitialunsuitabilityfinding,thebestinterestofthechildstandardappliestoanysubsequentmodification.Thecourtalsonotedthatthecasedidnotoriginateinadivorce

                                                            15 Larry G. McQuain, Magistrate, Franklin County Domestic Court, CHILD CUSTODY: Unsuitability vs. best interests, Family Law Briefs (2005) (available at http://www.peoplesbar.org/legalresources/Articles/ChildCustody.pdf).   

23  

proceedingand,thus,RC§3109.04(D)(2)didnotapply.

Standardapplicableinprobatecourttocustodydecisionsasbetweenparentandnon‐parent

Underitschargetorecommendmeasurestoimprovetheconsistencyofoutcomeforkinshipcaregiversacrosscourtjurisdictions,theSubcommitteealsoresearchedthestandardsapplicabletoestablishmentofguardianshipsandtheinterplaybetweendifferentcourtproceedingsinvolvingthesamefamilyandissues.Researchhighlightedtheconfusioninpracticeastothestandardsapplicableinthesecontexts.

TheSupremeCourtofOhioaddressedtheissueofchildcustodydisputesbetweenaparentandanonparentinMasittov.Masitto,22OhioSt.3d63,488N.E.2d857(1987). InMasittothefatheragreedtotheprobatecourt’sappointmentofthechild'smaternalgrandparentsasguardiansforhisminorchild. Later,thechild’sparentsagreedtoadivorcedecreethatcontainednospecificawardofcustodybutdidincorporatetheguardianshiporder.Thefathersubsequentlymovedforachangeofcustodyinthedomesticrelationscourt,whichthecourtdeniedapplyingthe“bestinterestofthechild”standardofR.C.3109.04(B).Nofindingwasmadewithrespecttotheunsuitabilityofthefather;thecourtactuallyfoundthathewas“fit”tohavecustody.

CitingPerales,theSupremeCourtnotedthatthegeneralruleregardingoriginalcustodyawardsindisputesbetweenaparentandanon‐parentisthat“‘parentswhoare“suitable”havea“paramount”righttothecustodyoftheirminorchildrenunlesstheyforfeitthatrightbycontract,abandonment,orbybecomingtotallyunabletocareforandsupportthosechildren.’ ”Id.at65,quotingInrePerales,52OhioSt.2dat97,6O.O.3d293,369N.E.2d1047. Thecourt,however,alsonotedanothergeneralruleinOhio,codifiedinR.C.3109.04(B)(1)and(E)(1)(a),thatonceanoriginalcustodyawardhasbeenmade,theawardwillnotbemodifiedunlessnecessarytoservethebestinterestofthechild. TheCourtheldthatthetrialcourt'sfindingthatanunsuitabilitydeterminationwasmadewhenthefatherhadagreedtotheprobatecourtguardianshiporder.Ineffect,herelinquishedhisrighttocustodybyagreeingtotheappointmentofthechild'sgrandparentsaslegalguardiansandlaterreaffirmedtherelinquishmentintheagreeddivorcedecree. TheCourtnoted, “Anadditionalfactortoconsiderhereisthattheguardianshipstatusoftheminorchildcouldnothaveexistedunlesstheprobatecourtfoundthatthe‘parentsareunsuitablepersonstohavethecustodyandtuitionofsuchminor,orwhoseinterests,intheopinionofthecourt,willbepromotedthereby.’ ”Id.,quotingR.C.2111.06.

Leev.Lee,2002Ohio3554InLee,amotherandfatherhadachildoutofwedlockandplacedthechildinthecareofaguardian.Thecouplelatermarried,butdidnotterminatetheguardianship;theysubsequentlydivorcedandthefathersoughtcustodyofthechild.Thecoupleagreedintheprobatecourttoterminatetheguardianshipduringtheirdivorceproceedings.Findingthatthecouplehadcontractuallywaivedtheirparamountrighttocustodybyleavingthechildintheguardianship,thedomesticrelationscourtawardedcustodyofthechildtotheguardian,applyingthe"bestinterestofthechild"testofORC§3109.04.TheFourthDistrictCourtofAppealsreversed,findingthattheterminationoftheguardianshipeffectivelyrevokedthecouple'scontractualwaiveroftheirparentalrights;thus,thecourtconcluded,theparentsretainedtheirparamountrighttocustodyandthetrialcourtwasrequiredtofindthecouple"unsuitable"underInrePeralesbeforeawardingcustodytotheguardian.

“BestInterest”analysisinlegalcustodycasesinjuvenilecourt

24  

UnlikeORC§2151.414(D),whichsetsoutbestinterestfactorscourtsmustconsiderindecidingwhethertograntpermanentcustodytoaPCSA,ORC§2151.353(A)(3),governingdecisionsonlegalcustody,doesnotsetforthfactorsthecourtshouldconsiderindeterminingthechild’sbestinterestsinrelationtoarequestforlegalcustody.Thus,courtshaveapproachedthe“bestinterest”analysesinvariousways.Representativecasesarediscussedbelow.

InreB.K.,2011Ohio4470InB.K.,thejuvenilecourtborrowedfromthedomesticrelationsstatuteforitsanalysis.Inthatcase,childrenwerefoundtobeneglectedanddependentandwereorderedtoremaininthetemporarycustodyoftheirgrandparents.Thechildrenwerebrieflyreturnedtothemother,whoviolatedacourtorderprohibitingthechildren'sfatherfromenteringtheresidence.Thegrandparentsweregrantedlegalcustodyofthechildren,andthemotherappealed.Inaffirming,theappellatecourtdeterminedthatthedecisiontograntlegalcustodytothegrandparentswasnotagainstthemanifestweightoftheevidence.Duringthetimethatthegrandparentshadcustody,thechildrenexhibitedsignificantimprovementintheirpreviouslyuncontrollablebehavior.Theyblossomedbothacademicallyandsociallywhileinthegrandparents'custody.Thegrandparentswerewillingtohonorandfacilitatethemother'svisitationtime.Themotheronlysporadicallyattendedvisitation,shehaddifficultysecuringemployment,shedidnotcompletehercaseplan,shehadunstableresidences,andshedidnottakeprescribedmedications.Therefore,itwasinthebestinterestofthechildrentoawardcustodytothegrandparents,pursuanttoORC§3109.04(F)(1).

InreAntwanJ.,2008Ohio477InAntwan,theOhioSupremeCourtupheldagrantoflegalcustodytoachild’sauntovertheobjectionofthechild’smother.TheCourtnotedthat,inordertograntlegalcustodyofaneglectedchildtoanonparent,thetrialcourtmustfind,byapreponderanceoftheevidence,thatlegalcustodyisinthechild'sbestinterestandthatacourtwillnotreverseanawardoflegalcustodyabsentashowingofanabuseofdiscretion.TheCourtdidnotrelyonparticularfactsinitsruling,butfoundthatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionwhere,despitethefactthattherewasnodisputethatthemothersubstantiallycompletedhercaseplanrequirements,thattheagencypresentedsufficientevidencethatthatreasonableeffortsweremadetoreunitethemotherwithherchildrenandthattheawardoflegalcustodytotheauntwasinthechildren'sbestinterests.Evidencedemonstratedthatthechild’sfatherwasinthehomeinviolationofcourtorderandthatthemother“whooped”thechildforreportingthisfacttothecaseworker.

InreSnyder,2006Ohio3478Thiscaseinvolvedacustodydisputeinjuvenilecourtbetweenagrandmotherandacouplewithwhomthegrandchildrenhadbeenplacedbytheirmother,whowaslaterincarcerated,wentAWOLfromjailand,withvariouswarrantsoutforherarrest,failedtoappearatthehearingonthegrandmother’scustodymotion.Thetrialcourtfoundthemotherunsuitableand,findingittobeinthechildren’sbestinterest,awardedcustodytothecouplewithwhomthechildrenlived.Grandmotherappealed,claimingthetrialcourterredbynaminganon‐relativeascustodian,citingRC§3109.04.TheSeventhDistrictCourtofappeals,notingthatthiswasnotacaseinvolvingacustodydisputebetweenparentsorbetweenaparentandanon‐parentandthatORC§3109.04thusdidnotapply,affirmedtherulingofthetrialcourt.

Ivesv.Ives,2003Ohio3505Inacaseinwhichamotherandpaternalgrandparentsfiledmotionsforemergencytemporarycustodyofthechildren,theNinthDistrictCourtofAppealsaffirmedthejuvenilecourt’sorderawardinglegalcustodytograndparents,applyingORC.§2151.23(A),whichrequiresapplicationofthe"suitabilityoftheparent"test,ratherthanORC.§3109.04,whichrequiresapplicationofthe"bestinterestsofthechild"test.Thecourtnotedthatalthoughcustodyproceedingsinvolving

25  

disputesbetweenparentsarebestservedbylookingsolelyatthewelfareofthechildren,inquiryisbroaderincustodyproceedingsbetweenaparentandanonparent.

ResourceIdentification

TheSubcommittee’sresearcheffortsincludedidentificationofresourcesandinformationalmaterials,bothforkinshipfamilymembersandprofessionalswhoworkwithkinshipfamilies.Althoughnationalresourcesareincluded,reviewfocusedonthemanysupportsandprogramsavailabletoOhiokinshipfamilies.Afulllistingofnational,state,andcountyresourcesisincludedasAppendix2.

StakeholderInformation‐gathering

Tocomplementitslegalandpolicyresearch,theSubcommitteedevelopedanambitiousplanforinformation‐gathering.Throughsurveys,interviews,andfocusgroups,informationwasgatheredtoinformthefinalrecommendationsoftheSubcommitteeinrelationtohowOhiolawandpracticeshouldbemodifiedtoprovideforbetteroutcomesforchildrencaredforbykinandtoprovideclearerandmoreaccessiblelegalpathstokinshipcare,especiallyforthemanycaregiverswhoactprose.

Thetopiconwhichinformationwassoughtincluded:datarelatedtothefrequencyandoutcomesofthedifferenttypesofkinshipcarepetitions;thestandardsusedatvariousstagesofcourtdecision‐making;theservicesandassistanceprovidedtokincaregiversbycourts,PCSAsandotherresourceorganizations;kinfamilyoutcomes;resourcesavailabletokinfamilymembers;andsuggestionsforimprovementtoOhiolawandpracticeinthisarea.

Thefollowingdetailstheprocessandoutcomesofthevariousinformation‐gatheringstrategies:

Surveys

Electronicsurveysweredevelopedtogatherinformationonkinshipcarelaw,policy,andpracticefromjudgesandmagistrates,PCSAs,resourceproviders,kincaregivers,andadultyouthwhowerecaredforbykin.Thesesurveyswerewidelydistributedviaanemaillinktogroupsandindividuals,including:

• SubcommitteeMembersandStaff• PCSAs• ThePublicChildrenServicesAssociationofOhio• Variouskinshipresource/supportorganizations• TheOhioAssociationofMagistrates(Juvenile,DomesticRelations,andFamilyCourts)• TheOhioIndependentLivingAssociation• TheOhioFamilyCareAssociation• PrivateFosterCareproviderorganizations

Subcommitteemembersalsodistributedthesurveylinkstotheirconstituentgroupsandsurveytakerswereurgedtoforwardthesurveylinktootherswhocouldprovideusefulinput.

431onlineresponseswerereceivedintotal.Inadditiontotheelectronicresponses,77hard‐copyresponseswerereceivedandenteredintotheelectronicsurveydatabase.Detailsontheresponsebystakeholdergroupfollow(copiesofthesurveysandfullsurveyresponsesareatAppendix3):

26  

SurveysforCourts

Data 71totalresponses(only43fullycompletedsurvey):

◦ 16judges◦ 37magistrates◦ 7courtadministrators◦ 6courtclerks

Responsesbycourtjurisdiction:

◦ ProbateCourt:14◦ JuvenileCourt:8◦ DR/FamilyCourt:14

CourtResponsesSummarizedbelowaresurveyresponsesinrelationtokeyquestionsontopicsinwhichtheSubcommitteefocuseditsreview,organizedbycourtjurisdiction(Probate,DomesticRelations,Juvenile).Verbatimresponsestoopen‐endedquestionsareincluded;allresponsesfromeachreportarelisted.

ProbateCourtInanswertothequestionofwhatstandardsthecourtusesindecidingwhethertograntapetitionforguardianshipofaminor,theresponseswereasfollows:

◦ ‘Fingerprintsfromallpartiesinthehomeovertheageof18.Consentsfromatleastoneparent.”

◦ TheJudge“considersthefilings,theapplicant'sabilitiesandresidencyanddesire,theinvestigator'sreports,andtheminor'sopinioniftheyare14andover.”

◦ “IstheApplicanta"suitable"personunderthelaw.”

◦ “Whetherornottheguardianshipappearstobenecessary.”

◦ “PerO.R.C.”;“Strictapplicationofstatute”;

◦ Bestinterestofchild(3)

Inanswertothequestion“whatlegalstandard(s)ortestappliesincertifyingacasetothejuvenilecourt?”,theresponseswereasfollows:

◦ “Werarelydothis.Nonecometomind.Again,theJudge'sdecision.”

◦ “O.R.C.”

◦ “IFCHILDISINNEEDOFMOREPERMANENCYINORDERS.”

◦ “Nothadtodothis”

27  

◦ “Iftheyarefightingaboutvisitation,orparentswanttoterminategdn.andCt.feelstheymaynotbesuitableparents.”

◦ “Nofundstoadministeronbehalfoftheminormajorissuesareofacustodyandvisitationissue.”

◦ “Guardianshipisnecessary,buttheapplicantisinappropriateorunqualified.”

◦ Numberofcasescertifiedtothejuvenilecourtinpasttwoyears:0(5);lessthan10(1);oneortwo(2).

Askedwhetherpetitionsforguardianshipofaminoraresuitableforproserepresentation,therespondersanswered:

◦ Yes(4)◦ No(1)◦ Preferrepresentation(1)

Comments:

“Theyfileit,wetakeit.Theyarenotrequiredtohaveanattorneyassist.IthinkthatmakesthingssomewhatdifficultfortheCourtbecausetheprosefilerdoesn'tknowwhattodo.”

“Proselitigantsshouldberequiredtoproperlypreparepaperwork.”

“Similarproblemstothoseinprosecustodyproceedings.Partiesunfamiliarwithproceduresandevidentiaryrequirements,particularlytheparentalunsuitabilityissue.”

Responsestothequestionwhether theguardianshipprocessallowsforknowledgeableparticipationbypetitionerswereasfollows:

◦ Yes(4)◦ No(1)

Comments:

“I'mnotsurewhatismeanthere‐thepetitionermustcompleteformswithoutCourtassistanceandtomakearrangementsfortheminor.TheCourtmustseethattheyarecapable,butoftentimesthepetitioneristhebestchanceforaminorwhethertheycanfollowCourtprotocolornot.”

“Petitionersshouldbeknowledgeablebeforefiling.”

“Probablynotwithoutexplanationbycourt.”

DomesticRelationsCourt

Responsestothequestion“howdorelativeswhoareawardedcustodybecomeacquaintedwiththerequirementsandlegalobligationsofcustody?”

◦ Counsel(5);CourtandCounsel(1)◦ Unknown(3)

28  

Comments:

“Thatisagoodquestion,especiallywhentheyareprose.ItrytotakesometimeandprovidegeneralinformationtothesepartiesinopencourtincasesonceIhavereachedadecision.Thisisnotalwayspossible,forexampleincontestedcaseswhenItaketheissueunderadvisement,Intheseinstances,Itrytoincludelanguageinmydecisionthatcanhelpaddressthesepoints,especiallyiftheywerecontestedpointsduringthehearing.PossiblyabetterwaywouldbetoprovidefortheCourtInvestigatortodoafollowupvisitoncelitigationisconcludedortoreferthepartytothelocalprobonoprogramtospeakwithanattorney.InthepastIhaveaddressedthisissuewhenaskedtospeaktograndparent‐custodiansupportgroups,butthisisratherhitormiss.Inlightofthisquestion,Iwillgivethissomethoughtandworkupabetterapproachtothisissue.”

“Myimpressionistheylearnbyexperiencingtheawardofcustody,oftentimeswithatemporarycustodyorderfirst.”

Responsestothequestion“doyoufindOhioRevisedCodesection3109.04(D)(2)relatingtocommitmentofachildtoarelativeorcertificationofacasetoJuvenileCourttobeclearandeasytoapply?”

◦ Yes(6)◦ Noor“notreally”or“notnecessarily”(6)

Comments:

“No.IbelievethatitslanguageconflictswithmyunderstandingoftheholdingsinInrePeralesandInreHockstok.”

“Yes,undercurrentlegalinterpretationsbycourts.”

“No.Idon'tknowwhatitmeans"committhechildtoarelative."TheprocedureforcertificationtoJuvenileCourtisnotclear.”

“No.Caselawrequiresmorethanabestinterestfindingtocommitthechildtocareofarelative.Additionally,ourJuvenileCourtrequiresadditionalfindingsbeyondabestinterestfindingbeforetheywillacceptthecertifiedcase.Additionally,wehaveissuesastoourCountyhasdomesticrelationsCourtjurisdictionoverthefamily,butgiventheresidenceofthechild,adifferentCountyJuvenileCourtwouldhavejurisdiction.IhavebeeninstructedthatImustcertifytomyCounty'sjuvenileCourtwhowillthentransfertothechild'sresidencecountyjuvenilecourt.Sometimestimingisanissue.”

Responsestothequestion“doyouhavesuggestionsastohowthelawcouldbemadeclearerinrelationtocommitmentofachildtoarelativeorcertificationofthecasetojuvenilecourt?”

◦ No(1)

Comments:

“Yes.Expresslymentioningtheparentalunsuitabilitystandardwould,Ibelieve,beveryhelpfulasthecurrentlanguageconflictswithwhatIunderstandtobetheappropriatestandardunderrelevantcaselaw.Ialsobelievethatthisportionofthelawhasbeenfoundtobedeficientattheappellatelevel.IdonothavethecitationavailableathandasIamcompletingthissurveyathome.”

29  

“Withrespecttocertificationtojuvenilecourt,justtellushowmuchoftherecordshouldbecertifiedover.”

“Itisn'tclearthatJuvenileCourtmusttakethecaseuponcertification.”

“Thestatuteshouldclearlystatethereasonforcertifyingacase‐‐norelativehasrequestedcustody?AndwhathappensifJuvenileCourtrefusesthecertification?”

“Itshouldbespelledoutwhat"committing"achildtoarelativemeans.Dotheparentshavetherighttovisit?Doesthepersontowhomthechildiscommittedgetchildsupportfromtheparents.ThroughtheCSEA?TheprocedureforcertificationtoJuv.Ct.shouldbespelledoutaswell.”

“TheStatuteshouldmatchtherequirementsofPeralesandHockstokdecisions.”

Responsestothequestion“whatstandard(s)doyouapplyindecidingwhethertoterminateanawardofcustodytoarelative?”

◦ “BasedonmyunderstandingofInreHockstok,theCourtwouldapplyabestintereststandardandthe"harm"testfoundinRCSection3109.04(E)(1)(a),uponashowingthatachangeincircumstanceshadoccurredonceaparentalunsuitabilityfindinghadbeenenteredpreviously.”

◦ “Iftherehasbeenafindingofunfitness,thestandardchangeofcircumstanceandbestinterest.Otherwise,bestinterestasdeterminedbythestatutoryfactors.”

◦ “Changeofcircumstancesandbestinterest.”◦ “Changeincircumstances,consent,integrationintohomeofpersonseekingcustody;

benefitsoutweighharm;bestinterests;custodynotterminated‐itismodified.”◦ “Whethertheparenthasremediedtheirunsuitability.”◦ “Ifanon‐custodialpartyisrequestingterminationoftheorder,thenthatpartyneedsto

demonstratethattherehasbeenachangeincircumstancesineitherthechild'scircumstancesorthecustodian'scircumstances,pursuanttoR.C.3109.04(E)(1),andalsoconsiderthefactorssetforthinR.C.3109.04(F).Idonotrecallacasewhenthecustodialrelativerequestedaterminationoftheorder.”

◦ “ThestandardssetforthinTroxelv.Granville.TheOhioSupremeCourtgivesparentslotsofleewaywhenitcomestomakingdecisionsabouttheirchildren.”

◦ “Bestinterest.”◦ “BESTINTERESTSOFCHILD.”◦ “Firstparentsmustnotbefit,thenbestinterests.”◦ “Changeofcircumstances,bestinterest,benefitofchangeofcustodyoutweighspotential

harm.”

JuvenileCourt

Responsestothequestion“howdokinshipcaregiverslearnoflegalcustodyobligationsorrequirements?”

◦ “ChildrenServiceswillgetnamesofsuitablerelativeplacementsfromtheparent(s).Theagencywillthencontacttherelativestoseeifanyofthemiswillingtoassumetheroleofcaregiver.”

◦ “ChildrenServicesAgency”(2)

30  

◦ “Children'sServicesinitially,whengranted,theyhavetosignadocument,basedupontheabovestatuteinopencourt,aftertheJudgereviewsthedocumentwiththem.”

◦ “JobandFamilyServiceseducatesthem,Courtinquires”◦ “TheysignastatementthatsetsforththelegalrequirementsandIaddressthe

requirementswiththeprospectivecustodiansincourtpriortoanawardofcustody.”◦ “Court”◦ “MainlythroughtheAgency'scaseworkerandwehavethepartiessignedtheStatementof

UnderstandingforLegalCustody.”◦ “Itdepends.IfourCPSisinvolved,CPSoftenlocates,screens,interviews,and(toalimited

extent)advocatesforfamilymemberswhowanttemporaryorlegalcustodyofaminor.Innon‐CPScases,mostfilersare"prose"andonlyafewarerepresentedbycounsel.Forthoseindividualswhoareactingprose,thecourthasinformationalpacketsandformsfortheiruse.”

◦ “Iftheyhavenotfiledandarenotapartytotheaction,theyaresimplyrequiredtoreviewandsignthestatutorylegalcustodyrightsform.”

Responsestothequestion“isORC2151.415(A)(relatingtoorderofdispositionuponterminationofatemporarycustodyorder),clearandeasytoapply?”

◦ Yes(12)◦ No(4)

Comments

“Thechildprotectionagencydoesnotalwayscomply.”

“Thereisnotclarityastowhatstandardtoapplywhenanon‐parentmovesthecourtforlegalcustodyunderaseparatecasenumberthanthechildprotectioncase.Thereisconfusionastohownon‐parentscaninterveneinthechildprotectioncaseandthenthestandardofproof‐‐‐isitjustbestinterestormustthecourtmakeanindependentfindingofunsuitability.Whataboutachangeofcircumstancesfinding?”

“Thestatutoryframeworkisamessandhasbeenforyears.Therearesimplytoomanyissuestoputintothissurvey.Hereareafew.Whydoprotectiveorders(suchassupervisedvisitationorders)haveasunsetdate?Doesitsuddenlybecome"safe"forachildtohaveunsupervisedcontactwithanabuserduemerelytothepassageoftime?Isjoindernecessarybeforethefilingofamotion?Therulesseemtosayyeswhilethestatuteissilent.Canachildfileforanextensionoftemporarycustody?Ifnot,whynot?”

Responsestothequestion“isORCSection2151.353(A)(3)relatingtoordersofdispositionofabused,neglectedordependentchildrenclearandeasytoapply?”

◦ Yes(14)◦ No(20)

Comments

“Thelanguagein2151.353(A)(3)(b),however,discouragessomepotentialkinshipcaregiversfromsteppingforwardbecause,toalayperson,itpaintsapicturethatthereisnorecourseshouldtheplacementdisrupt.”

31  

“TheChildprotectionagencydoesnotalwaysconformtotherequirementsofPPLAandwillnotusethisdispositionappropriately.Also,thecourthasnodiscretionwhenusingthisdisposition.”

“Someoftheprovisionsareclearwhileothersarenot.ThelinkingofjuvenilecasestoTitle31hasbeenanareaofrepeatedlitigationalloverthestate(does'Changeofcircumstance"apply....mustthemovantdemonstrateparentalunfitness..doesthejuvenilecourthavetheauthoritytoissueorderspursuanttosectionsintitle31notspecificallymentionedin2151.23or353.”

Responsestothequestionofwhatstandardisappliedtodecisionstoawardlegalcustody:

◦ Bestinterest(6)◦ BIplusclearandconvincingorasperORC(2)◦ Comments:◦ “Bestinterestofthechildattheinitialdetermination.Changeofcircumstancesandbest

interestwhenmodifyingapriororderofcustody.”◦ “Preponderanceoftheevidenceandbestinterestafterunsuitabilityofparentshasbeen

shown.”◦ “ClearandConvincingevidenceofparentsunfit,orstipulation,andbestinterestofchild

standard.”◦ “Inchildprotectioncases,standardisbestinterest.Butagainthereisnoclarity

regardingthestandardforaseparatemotionoralatermotionrequestingcustody.Clarityisneeded.”

◦ “ToanonparentinaprivateactionoranANDaction?Inaprivateaction,theparentsmustbedeterminedtobewhollyunsuitable,thenbestinterestisconsidered.”

Responsestothequestion“doyoufindORC2151.42(relatedtomodificationoforderoflegalcustody)tobeclearandeasytoapply?”

◦ Yes(13)◦ No(3)

Comments:

“TheOhioSupremeCourt,inthecaseofInreC.R.,2006‐Ohio‐1191,ruledthatanadjudicationofabuse,neglectordependencyisanimplicitdeterminationoftheunsuitabilityofthechild'scustodialand/ornoncustodialparents,resultingintheCourtnothavingtoapplythestandardsinInrePerales.”

“Conflictinglanguage.”

“Mostlyitisclearexceptthat2151.23directsthejuvenilecourttouseportionsofTitle31inmakingcustodydeterminations.Totheextentthatthecodesectionsdiffer,problemscanarise.”

“Standardofbestinterestsandchangeofcircumstancesapplicabletoanyothercustodydispute.”

Responsestothequestionofwhatstandardisappliedindecisionwhethertomodifylegalcustody:

“OurSecondDistrictCourtofAppeals,inInre:Z.B.,2010‐Ohio‐3335,heldthattheCourtmustmakeadeterminationofchangeofcircumstancesandbestinterestofthechildeveninthesituationwheretheparenthasconsentedtothechangeofcustody.”

32  

◦ “Changeofcircumstanceinthechildorthelegalcustodian.”◦ “Changeofcircumstancesstandardthenbestinterest.”◦ “Bestinterestsofthechildandwhethertherehasbeenasubstantialchangeinthe

circumstancesofthechild.”◦ changeofcircumstances◦ “Preponderanceoftheevidenceonchangeofcircumstances.”◦ “Changeofcircumstancesandthenbestinterest.However,ifit’sachildprotectioncasethen

justbestinterest.”◦ “Hastherebeenachangeincircumstancethatrelatestothequestionofcustodyinthe

custodianorthechild.Dothebenefitsoftheproposedchangeoutweightodetrimentofanychangeincustody.Finally,isthechangeinthechild'sbestinterests.”

◦ “Pursuanttothestatuteandcaselaw,AFTERanawardoflegalcustody,theremustbeachangeofcircumstancesresultinginamaterialadverseeffectonthechild.ThentheCourtmustconsiderbestinterest.”

◦ “Bestinterest.”◦ “CHANGEOFCIRCUMSTANCESANDBESTINTERESTS.”

Responsestoarequestforsuggestionsastohowthelawcouldbemadeclearerinrelationtoestablishment,termination,ormodificationofanorderoflegalcustodytoakinshipcaregiver:

◦ None(4)◦ “Abilitytoappointcounselfortemporarycustodianswouldbehelpful.Needbetter

understandingoftheirstandingasapartyinachildprotectioncasewhenonlyhavetemporarycustody.”

◦ “Shortofalong‐overduerewriteoftheentirejuvenilecodeandaconcurrentrestructuringoftherules,no.”

◦ “ThereshouldbeNOdifferenceininhowakinshipcaregiveristreatedversusanyothercaregiver.Thelawshouldtreatallnonparentcaregiversasequal.”

◦ “Notwithstandingtheclearlanguageof2141.42(B),thereseemstobesomedisagreementastowhethertheparenthasaconstitutionallyprotectedrighttothereturnofthechildiftheyarefoundtonolongerbe"unsuitable.“’

SurveysforPCSAs

SurveysforPCSAsfocusedonthecollectionofdataonthevarioustypesofkinshipcaregivers,therolesPCSAsplayinrelationtotheeachtypeofcaregivers,servicesprovided,andchallengestokinshipfamilies.

Data

122totalresponses(83completedentiresurvey)◦ 12Administrators◦ 26Supervisors◦ 9Directors◦ 43Caseworkers◦ 19“Other”(primarilykinshipprogramcoordinators)

92%,or109oftherespondersinteractdirectlywithkinshipfamilies

InputRelatedtoDifferentTypesofKinshipCaregivers

33  

InformalCaregiverso Data:

ThenumberofGrandparentPOAsrespondersworkedwithrangedfrom0‐500+(average:18;mostrespondershadworkedwithfewerthan10)

ThenumberofGrandparentCAAsrespondersworkedwithrangedfrom0‐80(mostrespondershadworkedwithfewerthan10)

o RoleofAgency:descriptionsvaried,including: Support Resourceidentification Caseservices KinshipNavigator Homestudies Provisionofinformation

o ServicesProvided:thechartbelowillustratesthemostcommonservicesprovided

Note:59%ofrespondersindicatedthattherearequalificationsorrestrictionsrelatedtosomeoftheseservices,primarilyincome‐related.

o 79%ofresponders,or76,indicatedthatthey,ortheagency,providedassistancetoinformalcaregiversinunderstandingtheirrightsandobligations,includingreferralstoresources,answeringquestionsaboutpublicbenefits,andprovidingconnectiontokinshipprogram.

KinshipLegalCustodians

34  

o Data Numberofkinshipcaregiverswithwhomtheresponderinteractedrangedfrom

0‐75(mostinteractedwithfewerthan25) 96%,or77,oftherespondersindicatedthatahomestudyorotherassessment

isrequiredforplacementofchildreninlegalcustodywithkin 86%,or68,oftherespondersprovidesometypeofassistanceinunderstanding

theirrightsandobligationstokinshipcaregiversinwhohavelegalcustody,including:provisionofinformationondifferencebetweenpermanentandlegalcustody;referraltoservices;explanationofbenefitsavailable;referraltokinshipprogramorcoordinator;casemanagement.

Servicesprovided:thechartbelowillustratesthemostcommonservicesprovided

Comments

Responderswereaskedtoidentifyservicesorsupportsthatwouldbemosthelpfultokinshipcaregivers.Representativeresponsesincluded:

Fundingisamajorissue.Afrequentbarriertokinshipistheirwillingnesstodealwithdysfunctionalbirthparents

35  

KincaregiversinOhioneedmorehelpinsecuringtheirbenefitsandneedmoreaccesstoservices.

Samemonies/qualificationsasfosterfamilytobesametokinshipfamily

Therearefewfinancialsupportsforkinshipcaregivers.Mostfamiliesstruggletoprovideclothingandeducationalsupplies.

Fundingisamajorissue.Afrequentbarriertokinshipistheirwillingnesstodealwithdysfunctionalbirthparents

KincaregiversinOhioneedmorehelpinsecuringtheirbenefitsandneedmoreaccesstoservices.

Samemonies/qualificationsasfosterfamilytobesametokinshipfamily

Therearefewfinancialsupportsforkinshipcaregivers.Mostfamiliesstruggletoprovideclothingandeducationalsupplies.

Responderswereaskedforsuggestionsforimprovementofthepolicies,practices,and/orsupportsrelatedtokinshipcareinOhio.Representativecommentsincluded:

Thereneedstobemoreassistanceandmoreaccessforkincaregivers.Theyneedtobegiventhebenefitofthedoubtandalsobegivenachancetoprovethattheythemselveshavereformedtheirlives.Somuchprecludesthemfromcaringforkin.

Thereareissuesrelatedtoadoptionbykinshipcaregiversthatmaybeworthlookinginto.ForexampleifCPSkeepscustodyuntilthechildisfreedforadoptiontheadoptivefamilyiseligibleforsignificantfinancialhelpandpostadoptionassistance.Ifthekinshipcaregivertakeslegalcustodyandlaterwantstoadopt,theyarenoteligibleforthatassistance.

Wedonotassistgrandparentswithlegaladviceorhelpingtofilloutcourtpaperwork,iftheyarenotagencyinvolved.IwouldlikehomestudiestobecomemoreconsistentbetweencountiesorrequirementsforhomestudyassessmentstobecomeregulatedbytheState.IwouldalsolikeeducatedastoopportunitiesforrelativesthatdonotgothroughPCSA's.

Iwouldliketoseemorerespiteavailabletothekinshipcaregivers.Itisstressfulandoftentheyneedabreak.Theyalsoneedmorefinancialassistanceasmanyarestrugglingtomakeendsmeetanddidnotfactorinthecostofraisingachildintheirlateryears.Weoftenforgetthevalueofkeepingthechildrenwithrelativesandshouldbehelpingtherelativesineverywaypossible.Iwouldliketoseemoreeducationalopportunitiesandacknowledgementtothekinshipproviders.

Whenaskedwhatmightbedonetoprovideforconsistentpathsforkinshipcaregivers,responderssuggestedthefollowing:

Thereneedtobeclearerguidelinesforallthecourtsandtheguidelinesshouldnotdifferbetweenthecourtsthataregrantingcustody.

36  

Avoiddecisionsbeingmadewithoutalltheinformationorwithanoveremphasisonkeepingkintogetheroverwhat’sinthebestinterestofthechild.

Makethechildthenumberonepriority–howisthechildbeinghandled?Whatexperiencesaretheybeingexposedto?

Thereshouldbeconsistenciesthroughoutthestateregardingthetypesofcustodyandguardianshipandaccesstocourtshouldbeaffordable.

Thefollowingresponsesidentifiedthemostcriticalresourcesforkinshipcaregivers:

Financialresourcesanddaycare.MaybeTitleXXcouldbeextendedabit.Counselingforkidsinthesystemsthathavebeentraumatized.

Respite.Counselingorsomethingthatsupportsthechildandthekinincreatingthisnewnormal.

Ithinktheyneedalevelofcasemanagementcoordinationthatisalwaysavailable.Ithinkthatcasemanagementcoversit,ifresourcesareavailabletheywouldhavewaystoaccessthem.

Childcareandrespite.Aninitialonethereisalwaysagreatneed,wheretheyneedabedordresserthat’sahugeneedforeveryfamilythatfaceskinshipcare.Communityresources–theyareoftenextremelyoverwhelmedanddon’tknowwheretoturn.Foodandtutoring,especiallywithgrandparents,theydon’tunderstandtheschoolworkortoday’stechnology.Clothingandshoesareahugeburdenbecausethey’reconstantlygrowing.Foodassistance.

Well,basedonwhatI’mseeingtoday,thenumberonethingisaccesstomentalhealthandcounselingforthoseunder5.Respiteforthecareproviders.

Weareveryfortunatethatwehaveanattorneyandlawfirmthatprovidesafreeconsultationtoeverypersonseekingcustody.

SurveysforKinshipCaregivers

GeneralData

236responses:o 91%femaleo 85.6%liveinhouseso 70.4%identifiedasEuropeanAmerican/Caucasian;24.5%asAfrican

American/Blacko Mostfrequentrelationshiptochild(64%)identifiedismaternalgrandmothero 50.2%areemployedo 55.3%marriedorinpartnership;43%singleo 19.9%haveincomesover$50,000annually;themodeincomerange(20.3%)is$10

–18,000;15.8%haveincomesunder$10,000o 70.5%reportedincomesufficientforneedso 61.7%haveadvancededucation(technicalschool,college,orpost‐graduate)o Agebreakdown:

37  

2in80s 14in70s 54in60s 78in50s 53in40s 23in30s 2in20s

o 66%,or148,reportedhavingincomesufficientforneedso MajorityofresponderswerefromColumbusorCentralOhio,followedbyNortheast

OhioandSouthwestOhio.o 209respondersansweredquestionsrelatedtothenumberofchildrencaredforand

theagesofthosechildren: 279childrentotalcaredfor Numberofchildrencaredforrangedfrom1‐7 Children’sagerangeswere:

101between12‐18yearsofage 95between6‐11yearsofage 79between0‐5yearsofage 4between19‐22yearsofage

InputRelatedtoCaregiverStatus

Atotalof136respondersansweredaquestionrelatedtotheirkinshipstatusastoatotalof268childrenintheircareasfollows:

o 135childrenwereinthelegalcustodyofthecaregiverso 33childrenwereinaninformalrelationshipwiththecaregiverso 36childrenwereinthetemporarycustodyofthecaregivero 23childrenwerebeingcaredforunderagrandparentPOAo 21childrenwerebeingcaredforunderagrandparentCAAo 8childrenhadbeenadoptedbytheirkincaregivero 25respondersindicated“other”relationships,butfromthetextresponsesprovided,

itappearedthattherewasaconfusionastotheterm“legalcustody”;severalrespondersindicatedthattheyhad“permanentcustody.”Othersindicatedtheywerekinshipcaregiversorwerenotsureoftheirstatus,orwereintheprocessofobtainingastatus,suchaslegalcustody.

InputRelatedtoServices

Kinshipcareproviderswereaskedaboutservicestheyuseforthechildrenintheircare,thosetheydon’tuse,andthosethattheyneed.Answersarereflectedinthechartbelow:

38  

39  

Kinshipproviderswereaskedaboutthelevelofdifficultyofapplyingorobtainingdesignatedservices,filings,orresources.Answerswereasfollows:

Kinshipcaregiverswereaskedtoidentifytheservicesandsupportsmosthelpfultothem.Answerswereasfollows:

Legal KinshipNavigator Childcare Faith‐basedservices Counseling Extra‐curricularactivities Comments:

40  

“NotsurewhattheKinshipNavigatorisunlessit'stheKinshipdeptatChildrensservices.Theyhavehelpedsome.Ohiodoesn'tpaythecaregiversthesamemoneythatFosterparentsgetanditshouldbethesame.Ittakesthesameamounttoraiseachildnomatterwheretheylive.Idon'thaveenoughmoneytogetwhatweallneed.”

Kinshipcaregiverswereaskedaboutcourtfilingstheymadeinrelationtothechildrenintheircare.Responsesarereflectedinthischart:

Inrelationtosuchafiling,thecaregiverswereaskedwhethertheyreceivedtheorderforwhichtheyfiled.Responseswereasfollows:

Yes(66) No(20) Somenotedthattheorderwasinrelationtoaparental/agencymotion,nottheirown

motion Comments:

o IwasinformedthatmymotionIpaidforwouldbedismissedandnotheardduetothePCSAnotfilingthemotionANDthatthePCSAwouldonlygivemeTemporaryCustodyandnotLegalCustody,whichiswhatmeandmysisterwouldliketoseehappen.

o Wouldratherhavepermanentcustodyinsteadoflegalcustodyoftheoldertwochildren.

o NoIwantedtobelegalguardiannothavelegalcustody

41  

Caregiverswereaskedwhether,inrelationtosuchafiling,theyrequestedanyoneatthecourttoprovideassistance.Responseswereasfollows:

Yes(25) No(61) Comments:

o No‐Ihadtopayformyownattorneyo Yes,IreceivedtheassistanceofaCASA.o Childadvocateforminorchild.Informationonwhatweshoulddonext.Wastoldto

getanattorneyandtheycouldwalkusthruitmoreeasily.Welfareofficesaidtocomeinbuttheycouldnotdomuchtohelpusintheend.

o Justguidanceastowhatinformationgoeswhereontheforms.o Childrenserviceso No,itwasverydifficulttofindthehelpIneeded

Caregivercomments:

Wedonotassistgrandparentswithlegaladviseorhelpingtofilloutcourtpaperwork,iftheyarenotagencyinvolved.IwouldlikehomestudiestobecomemoreconsistentbetweencountiesorrequirementsforhomestudyassessmentstobecomeregulatedbytheState.IwouldalsolikeeducatedastoopportunitiesforrelativesthatdonotgothroughPCSA's.Iwouldliketoseemorerespiteavailabletothekinshipcaregivers.Itisstressfulandoftentheyneedabreak.Theyalsoneedmorefinancialassistanceasmanyarestrugglingtomakeendsmeetanddidnotfactorinthecostofraisingachildintheirlateryears.Weoftenforgetthevalueofkippingthechildrenwithrelativesandshouldbehelpingtherelativesineverywaypossible.Iwouldliketoseemoreeducationalopportunitiesandacknowledgementtothekinshipproviders.

AsagrandparenttakingcareofmygranddaughterIwouldsuggestyouhelpthepeopleinvolvedinkinshipcarewithdaycareexpenses,attorneyfees,andfoodstamps.Iworkafulltimejobandmyincomewasusedwhenfillingouttheformstotryandreceiveaidformygranddaughter.TheonlyaidIwasgivenwasKinshipCaremoney.Iusedthattohelppayforherdaycare.Iget$268amonthanddaycareis$464.TheguidelinesdonottakeintoaccountthatIhadtotakeoutasecondmortgageonmyhouse,drainmysavingsandtakeoutaloanonmyretirementtopayforattorneyfees.Iamcurrentlypaying$560everymonthandthenIpaymybillsandbuyfood.Ihavetofindwaystocutoutexpensesonmybudget.IrenegotiatedmycellphonebillandIgotridofmylandline.Icanceledthecablebill(Iwasacustomerforover30years).IbuyclothesoneBayoratyardsales.Nowtakethisintoaccount:Mygranddaughter'sparentslivewithherothergrandma.Therearesevenadultsandtwochildrenlivinginathreebedroomapartment.Fiveofthoseadultshaveaddictions.Oneoftheadultsisherauntwhohasaheroinaddictionandsheisthemotherofthetwochildren.ShedoesnotworkandisreceivingADC,wic,foodstamps,andnowfreedaycare.ShebringshertwokidstothesamedaycareItakemygranddaughtersoshecanworktwodaysaweek.ShereceivesTitle20topayfordaycare.Iofcoursedidn'tqualifyforTitle20becauseIwork,nevermindIampayingformygranddaughter.IworkandIdon'tgetthosebenefitsbutshedoesn'tworkandcangetallofthis?Isitnowonderthatwearesofrustratedwiththesystem?IamonlyaskingthatthepeopleinvolvedinKinshipCarereceivethesamebenefitsasthosewhodon'tworkandareusingdrugs.

42  

Ithinkitwouldbeveryhelpfultohaveanadvocatetohelpuskinshipmembersnavigatethroughthecourtsystem.IbelievemyattorneydeliberatelyranupmybillbecausesheknewIwouldpayit.Itwasn'tuntilIranoutofmoneythatthiscasewasfinallysettled.NowIthinkifIdidn'thavethemoneyatallthismayhavebeensettledsooner.ThatiswhyIfeelweneedanadvocatetohelppeopleunderstandthelegalsystem.Idon'tunderstandhowcriminalsgetfreeattorneysbutwehavetopayafortuneforattorneyfees.SincebeinginvolvedinkinshipcareIhaveseenothersstrugglewithtakingcareofthechildrenwhilebeingoverwhelmedwithallthelegalandfinancialissues.Ihavespokenwithpeoplethathavecomeclosetolosingtheirhomesandtheirmarriagesareintrouble.Theyaretryingtohandlechildrenthathavesufferedgreatlyatthehandsoftheirparents.Ibelievethatsometypeofcounselingshouldbeavailabletothesegrandparentstohelpthemcopewiththesituation.

Thisexperiencehasnotbeenallnegative.Imet______andshehasbeenjustamazingtoallofus.Sheorganizesmeetingssowecangettogetherandprovidesdaycaresowecantakethekids.Kinshipcarehasholidayoutingsforthefamilies,bowling,clothinggiveaway,andswimmingtimes.Theyalsogaveusmoneytobuythekidssomeschoolclothes.Iamgratefulforwhatallwehavereceived.EvenwithallthisIwoulddoitallagain.Iwoulddoanythingformygrandchild.IamalsowillingtocomeanddiscussorcomeandspeaktoanycommitteethatisconsideringbenefitsforKinshipcarefamilies.

SurveysforResourceProviders

GeneralData

25responsesreceived Typesofservicesresourceprovidersofferincluded:

o Intakeandreferralserviceso Homevisits,in‐officeconsultations,phonecalls,newsletters,

presentations/workshopso PediatricHealthcareo Medical,behavioralandsocialcareo Kinshipnavigatorprogramservicesfortheelderlyforthosekinshipcaregiverswho

areage60+o Informalcasemanagemento Supports,fostercare,counseling,wraparoundservices,respiteandreferralsto

othercommunityagencieso Supportgroupso Familyevents

43  

ServicesProvided

Thefollowingchartillustratesthescopeofservicesprovidedbyorganizationsthatsupportkinshipcaregivers.

Representativecommentsastohowstate/countyagenciescouldbetterservekinshipfamilies:

Reducebarrierstocustodychangeandfinancialhardshipofcourtcosts Coordinateprograms&requirementstomakethingslesscomplicated Behavioralandmentalhealthresources/counselorsareingreatdemand.Respitecare

wouldalsobehelpfulforkinshipcaregivers Thestateseemstobenefitfiscallyfromakinshipplacementduetoreducedneedforoutof

homeplacementsinfostercarebutdoeslittletoprovidesupportforthosekinwhocareaboutthekidsbutdon'thaveresources.Thisseemstoalsobeadecidingfactorforsomefamilieswhodon'tfeeltheycanadequatelycarefortheneedsofadditionalchildrenintheirhomesorraisinganothergenerationonafixedretirementincome.

Helpwiththetransitionwhenkintakecustodyofachildsothattheyknowthefullavailabilityofresourcestheycanaccess.

44  

Interviews

Aspartof thesurveyprocess,participantswereaskedwhether theywouldbewilling toprovideadditional feedback through follow‐up interviews. Sixty‐five individuals surveyed shared theirname and contact information and asked for follow‐up interviews (12 magistrates/judges; 16resourceorganizations;37PCSAstaff). Aprotocolwasdeveloped for follow‐up interviews tobeconductedduringMayand June,2012. Questionsandrepresentativecommentspertinent to thisreportinclude:

JudgesandMagistrates

WhatdoyoubelievetheSupremeCourtofOhioSub‐CommitteeonChildren,Families,andtheCourtmustknowtoproperlyrevisethelawtoaddressinconsistenciesre:custodybetweenJuvenile,DomesticRelations,andProbateCourts?

◦ “Thebetterwaytogomaybetoputguardianshipandpartiesotherthanparentsdirectlyinjuvenilecourts”.

◦ “One of the significant problems is the different standards, specifically the DomesticRelations Court. There are differences in regions, regarding the ‘best interest’ standard,2151orchapter31. (MontgomeryCounty)courtshavesaidwemustuse2151,andothercourts say use chapter 31 of theRevisedCourt.’ That issue of the ‘best interest standardmustberesolved.”

◦ Idon’tknowthatthereareanyrealinconsistencies;Ihaveprobate,juvenileanddomesticrelationsdivisionsofthecourt.It’sveryeasyformetoseehowthatinteractionplaysout.One suggestion would be to combine to court, but that’s not practical every place. Theproblemisthatalotoftimesthose3divisionsdon’tknowwhattheothersaredoing. IfIhaveaguardianshipandIseethatitshouldbecustody,it’seasyformetogetaholdoftheattorney.Betweenthosetwodivisions,bystatute,Icanmovecasesbetweenthecourts.

Whatmust occur for there to be clear and consistentways to handle child care custody cases inkinshipcaresituations?

◦ “Thefocusmustbewhat’sbestforthechildandnotwhattheparentorgrandparentwants.”◦ “Mostofthefolksbeforeusarefilingproseandtheycan’taffordanattorney.Weusedto

use the Ohio Public Defenders Commission (money) to appoint GALs and lawyers.Magistratesfeellikethey’remakingdecisionsinthedark.”\

◦ Iwouldget ridof thecaretakeraffidavitbecause I find that inallof thosecases, I alwayshavesometypeofinvestigationtoseethatthechildisbeingtakencareof.Ifindthateventhoughtheaffidavitsaysnottodoso,peopleofCAAuseittogoanotherschool.Thefocusmustbewhat’sbestforthechildandnotwhattheparentorgrandparentwants.

Whatresources/servicesmustalwaysbeavailableforallindividualsseekingcustodyofkin?

◦ “Obviouslylegalrepresentationisthenumberone.”◦ “There needs to be some sort of compliance office to assure that the filings are not

incomplete.Abetterprocess forpro se filingswouldhelpexpedite the caseandhelp theprocessalot.”

WhatdoestheSub‐Committeeneedtoknowtofullyunderstandand/oraddresskinshipcareinOhio?

◦ “Ourfocusneedstomoveawayfromwhatpartiesmayormaynothavehappenandbewhatchildrenneed.”

45  

◦ “Mostpeopleoutsideof JuvenileCourtdonotunderstand thevolumeofprosecases.Wedon’thaveanyvolunteerattorneysinJuvenileCourt.IbelievethatUD’slawstudentswouldbebetterutilizedinJuvenileCourt.”

PCSAs

WhatdoyoubelievetheSupremeCourtofOhioSub‐CommitteeonChildren,Families,andtheCourtmustknowtoproperlyrevisethelawtoaddressinconsistenciesre:custodybetweenJuvenile,DomesticRelations,andProbateCourts?

◦ First,theymustbeeducatedoftherealitiesofthepopulationthatbestservesourchildren,theirfamilies,andthelimitationstheyfacethroughlegalorfinancialstrongholdsthatkeepthemfromcaringfortheirkin.Fosterparentsarereimbursedcosts,relativesarenot,fosterparentsaregivendaycarereimbursement,relativesarenot.

◦

Whatmust occur for there to be clear and consistentways to handle child care custody cases inkinshipcaresituations?

◦ TheJudges,GAL’sandattorneysmustbeeducatedofthebenefitsoffamilyplacementandtheprocessesthatagenciescommittothatcanenablepermanencywithinthefamily.Theremust be a relationship built of cooperation between the entities, the judicial and childwelfare, and ODJFSD to ensure that those that should be caring for kin can and are notdiscouragedthroughthelegalprocessesandlackofavailablesupports.

Whatresources/servicesmustalwaysbeavailableforallindividualsseekingcustodyofkin?

◦ Education….raisingchildrenhaschangedsincemanyofthese“grandparents”raisedtheirs.School systemsaredifferent, socialmedia is rampant, andbecauseof thegenerationgap,there needs education. Many are also on fixed income. Financial support. Why arestrangerstochildrenreimbursedexpensescausedtohouseholdsandrelativesnot?Thesechildren have been damaged by the trauma that they have seen or experienced. Whatspecial carewill these childrenneed thatnot just “love” can compensate. Whatare theirlegaloptions forpermanencyandnothaveagencies forceoneor theotheroptionuponafamily.

WhatdoestheSub‐Committeeneedtoknowtofullyunderstandand/oraddresskinshipcareinOhio?

◦ Theyneedtotalktoorlistentokincaregivers,talktothedirectcaseworkerswhosupportkincaregivers,thusthesurveys.Thatkinshipcaregiversareourbestoptionsfordisplacedchildren,manyofthemarenotaccustomedtousingsystems,andareunfamiliarwithjudicialorODJFS,anditbecomesoverwhelming.Theyneedhelp.

◦ Theyneedhelpineachcounty.Weneedtoshiftourfocusfromfostercarebacktokinasaprimaryfocus.Wepaystrangerstocareforchildrenandhelpthemadopt.Manycountiesdonotofferfostertrainingtotheirrelativecaregiversoravailabilityforlicensure.ManyGAL’sstillhavethemindsetthat“theappledoesn’tfallfarfromthetree”andrecommendforchildrentolive“asfarawayfromthisfamilyaspossible”asoneGALwroteintheirlettertotheJudge.Researchshowsthatstatementcouldn’tbefurtherfromthetruth.Thatattorney/GALwon….shemadeitsodifficultfortherelativeandpostponedsomanyhearingsandwrotesomanyobjections,thatitbecamecostprohibitivefortherelativeto

46  

continuetakingdaysoffworkdrivinghundredsofmilestoattendhearings,onlytohaveitcontinuedoropposedagain.Thechildisbeingadoptedbyafosterparent,astrangertothefamily.Topullchildrenawayfromtheirfamiliesand/orcultureisdamaging.Removefromharm,butnotfromfamiliarityandgenuinecare.WeneedlegislationthatiseasyforthosewhoarenotusedtoSystem.Weneedlegalassistancetothoserelativesnotabletoaffordtohireattorneys,weneeddaycarereductionsforthoserelativesthatworkandcannotpayalsoforafulldaycarebillbutarethebestandmostnaturalcaregiversforthechildren.Weneedastatepushforeducationofjudges,attorneys,andGAL’sinrelationshiptokinplacementandsupportoftheCourtsystem.

ResourceOrganizations

WhatdoyoubelievetheSupremeCourtofOhioSub‐CommitteeonChildren,Families,andtheCourtmustknowtoproperlyrevisethelawtoaddressinconsistenciesre:custodybetweenJuvenile,DomesticRelations,andtheProbateCourt?

◦ Thethingaboutworkinginthekinshipgroupandwatchinggrandparentstrytotakecareofchildren,Iseealotofkidsgetcaughtup(it’sverynormalforthemtobeloyaltotheirparentsandwanttoseethem)thatsabotagestheirplacementandtheparentsaresupposedtobedoingwhatthey’resupposedtobedoing,itsabotagingtheplacement,e.g.,especiallyifwe’retalkingaboutsomeunsupervisedvisitationistheparentstheirposition/whatthey’vedone,alcohol,drugs,lackofhousing,theymakethesepromisestothekids,theykeepthekidsinwaiting–kidsinlimbo…becausethey’reloyaltotheirparentstheycan’tsettleandthegrandparentswanttheirchildrentogetthekidsback.Thegrandparentswantthekidstobeinastableenvironmentbecausethekidsgetmixedmessages,evenfromtheirothergrandparent,wherethechildalmostdoesn’tattachanywhere(whichfuelsthediagnosisofreactiveattachmentdisorder).Whoever’sgotthem,youjusttakecareofthechildrenbecausewhatIseehappenistheydetachandit’shardforthembecausethey’reangry,hurt,andconfused.Sometimes,they’reinwaitingfortheirparentstogetthemselvestogether.Alotoftimesforsomeparents,they’reinthebestofthebothworlds,theycancomeandgoastheypleaseandthey’vegotsomebodytotakecareoftheirchildrenandthelawissayingtheparentsneedtoseethekids…theydon’twantanybodytohavethem…peopleneedtobethinkingaboutthebestinterestofthechildren.I’mtryingtogetmyselftogetherbutthechildshouldn’thavetobetorninhalf.

Whatmustoccurfortheretobeclearandconsistentwaystohandlechildcarecustodycasesinkinshipcaresituations?

◦ Inallthedifferentcourtsandallthedifferentstipulations,thechildneedsanadvocate,aGALthatstaysinvolvedtomonitorthechild.

Whatmustoccurfortheretobeclearandconsistentpathsforkinshipcaregivers?

◦ Thesekidsneedtohavetheirownattorneyevenpastafterthecustodyisthere.Especiallyifyouhaveparentsthatmustcompletecertainactivities,whoknowsifthey’redoingthat…ifthegrandparentshavetomonitorittakestheirenergyawayfromtakingcareofthekids.Andkidsandgrandparents/kingiverbeinginsomekindofprogramtohelpthemconnectasafamilyforwhateverperiod,sotheycangetsupportandgetthroughtheroughtimesandfinancialsupport–somecitieshavekinshipprogramwithalittlebitofmoney(that’snotwhytheyhavethem)whatI’veseenthemisgrandparentsaregettingreadytoretire,theyhavedownsizedtheirhouse,theygettheirgrandchildrenandthenewlivingsituation

47  

won’twork.Whataresomeofthelosses,thelossofbeingagrandparentisabigone,youwantthegrandparentstoworkthroughthatandnotresentthechildren.Imakeitcleartothemthattheymadethechoice….

Whatresources/servicesmustalwaysbeavailableforallindividualsseekingcustodyofkin?

◦ Ithinkrespite.Ithinkcounselingorsomethingthatsupportsthechildandthekinincreatingthisnewnormal.Youmayalsohavethepeoplethattakingthechildrenhavetheirownchildrenandwhatabouttheirchildreninthistransition,sharingtheirchildren.Alotoftimes,we’rerunningintograndparents,whohavetakenon‘morethantheycanchew’andtheydon’tknowwhattodo.Thechildandthegrandparentarenotgettingalong…sometimesit’sbecauseofthesabotaging…Idon’tknowwhattosayaboutthat…youdon’twantthemtofeelbad.Theyknowthatthechild’snotattachingandtheydon’tknowwhattodo,especiallyifthechildiswaitingontheirparentstogetittogether.I’mdreaming,butifwecouldgettheparentstoensurethatthechildrenarethegoal,forrightnowletyourchildrenhavethisexistenceandgivethempermissiontobeher.It’shardtoadmitthatyoumadesomebadchoicesthatbroughtthison,they’resufferingenoughbecausetheyarenotwithyoubutifyousabotagebymakingitseemthatthey’relivingwithDracula,youcouldpreventthat.

FocusGroups

In‐person sessions to gather stakeholder input on kinship care and to provide opportunitiesparticipantstotakewrittensurveyshavebeenconductedon‐siteatvariousstakeholderagencies,organizations,andgatherings,including:

AGrandparent/KinshipStatewidesupportgroupmeeting AFranklinCountyYouthAdvisoryBoardMeeting A“Family‐to‐Family”ProgramMeeting AmeetingoftheOhioFamilyCareAssociationBoard Atrainingsessionconductedbyaprivatefostercareagency TheOhioFamilyCareAssociationannualconference

Input from these sessions was entered into the survey data base and reflected in the surveyanalysisabove.

Section4FocusingonRecommendations

In recognition of the breadth of issues identified in its research, the Subcommittee decided toconcentrate efforts on discrete Ohio Revised Code provisions that have significant impact onoutcomes for kinship caregivers and the children in their care, rather than attempting broadreform. After reviewing stakeholder survey responses, the Subcommittee selected the followingareas on which to focus its attention. The following outline summarizes the issues flagged forconsiderationandtheoptionstheSubcommitteeconsideredforstatutoryreform.

Consistencyamonglawsapplicabletovariouscourtswithjurisdictionoverkinshipcaregivers

1) DomesticRelations/FamilyCourt:1) Subcommitteemembersandsurveyrespondersexpressedconcernoverthe

standardsapplicableindomesticrelationscourtsforanawardofcustodytoa

48  

relative.Alsoflaggedfordiscussionwastheprocessforcertifyingacasefromthedomesticrelationscourttothejuvenilecourt.

2) UnderORC§3109.04(D)(2):“Ifthecourtfinds,withrespecttoanychildundereighteenyearsofage,thatitisinthebestinterestofthechildforneitherparenttobedesignatedtheresidentialparentandlegalcustodianofthechild,itmaycommitthechildtoarelativeofthechildorcertifyacopyofitsfindings,togetherwithasmuchoftherecordandthefurtherinformation,innarrativeformorotherwise,thatitconsidersnecessaryorasthejuvenilecourtrequests,tothejuvenilecourtforfurtherproceedings,and,uponthecertification,thejuvenilecourthasexclusivejurisdiction.”(emphasisadded)i) TheSubcommitteeandsurveyrespondersnotedthatthestandardforawardof

custody(therelationshipimpliedbytheterm“committoarelative”)isinconsistentwiththestandardforanawardofcustodytoanon‐parent,bothunderthejuvenilecodeandunderOhioSupremeCourtprecedent:bestinterestasopposedtoparentalunsuitability.Thefollowingoptionswereconsideredtoaddressthisinconsistency.(1) Options:

(a) Amendthestandardforanawardofcustodytoarelativeoveraparent(i.e.,ifthecourtfindsthatneitherparentissuitableanditisinthebestinterestofthechild….)

(b) Clarifythe“bestinterest”standardthroughreferencetothecriteriaonwhichdecisionsastoanawardofcustodytoaparentarebased,articulatedinprecedingsubsectionsofORC§3109.04(toincludesuchthingsashechild’sinteractionandinterrelationshipwiththechild’sparents,siblings,andanyotherpersonwhomaysignificantlyaffectthechild’sbestinterest;thechild’sadjustmenttothechild’shome,school,andcommunity;thementalandphysicalhealthofallpersonsinvolvedinthesituation;theparentmorelikelytohonorandfacilitatecourt‐approvedparentingtimerightsorvisitationandcompanionshiprights;whethereitherparenthasfailedtomakeallchildsupportpayments,includingallarrearages,thatarerequiredofthatparentpursuanttoachildsupportorderunderwhichthatparentisanobligor;whethereitherparentoranymemberofthehouseholdofeitherparentpreviouslyhasbeenconvictedoforpleadedguiltytoanyspecifiedcriminaloffense).

(c) Deletetherelativecommitmentoptionandrequirecertificationtojuvenilecourtinallcasesinwhichthedomesticrelationscourtfindsthatitisinthebestinterestofthechildtoforneitherparenttobedesignatedastheresidentialparentandlegalcustodian.

(d) Provideastatutoryprocessforvoluntaryawardofcustodybyparentsinsuchcases,withsubsequentreviewoftheaward(ifnoagreementforvoluntaryawardcanbereached,casewillbecertifiedtojuvenilecourt).

49  

ii) Confusionoverterm“commitmenttoarelative,”whichisundefinedandnotconsistentwithanycustodialoptionslistedelsewhereintheOhioRevisedCode(i.e.,guardianshiporlegalortemporarycustody).(1) TheSubcommitteeconsideredthefollowingoptions:

(a) Changethetermto“committothecustodyof…”(additionalissuesconsideredinrelationtothisoptionwerewhethertoincludeadefinitioninthiscodesectionorprovideacross‐reference;andwhethercustodyshouldbecharacterizedas“temporary”or“legal”)

(b) Broadenpotentialcustodiancategorybeyondrelativestoincludekinshipcaregiversasbroadlydefined(thosewithacloseconnection)

(c) Eliminatethisprovision,ifthedecisionismadetorecommendcertifyingallsuchcasestojuvenilecourt

iii) Standardforcertifyingtojuvenilecourt:“bestinterest”asopposedtosomeotherstandard

(a) TheSubcommitteeconsideredthefollowingoptions:(i) Unsuitable(additionalissue:shouldanevidentiarystandardbe

included?)(ii) Whatisunfit?

1. Childisabused,neglectedordependent(whodoesadjudication)?

2. Standardforremoval/sheltercareprocessperORC§§2151.31and2151.314

(2) TheSubcommitteealsoconsideredwhetheraprocessforcourtoversightshouldbearticulatedafter“commitment”toarelative(assumingarecommendationthatjurisdictionremainwithdomesticrelationscourtinsuchcases).(a) TheSubcommitteeconsideredthefollowingoptions:

(i) Includeadirectiveforcourtoversightsimilartothatrequiredunderanorderofprotectivesupervision

(ii) Inclusionofascheduleforperiodichearings(3) Finally,theSubcommitteeconsideredwhethertorecommendinclusionofa

specificstandardformodificationoforderofcustodytorelative:(a) Optionsdiscussed:

(i) Changeincircumstancesstandardapplicabletolegalcustodydeterminationsinjuvenilecourt

(ii) Leavingthedecisiontothediscretionofthecourtatanytimeonitsownmotionoronthemotionofaparty(includingthecaregiverasaparty).

2) ProbateCourt:1) TheSubcommitteenarrowedfocusonguardianshipprovisiontothestandards,

terms,andprocessesforestablishmentoftheguardianshipofaminorandthemodificationorterminationoftherelationship,especiallyasappliedtorelativecaregivers.

2) UnderORC§2111.02(A)(appointmentofguardian),“Iffoundnecessary,theprobatecourtonitsownmotionoronapplicationbyanyinterestedpartyshallappoint,subjecttodivisions(C)and(D)ofthissectionandtosection2109.21anddivision(B)ofsection2111.121oftheRevisedCode,aguardianoftheperson,theestate,orboth,ofaminororincompetent,providedthepersonforwhomthe

50  

guardianistobeappointedisaresidentofthecountyorhasalegalsettlementinthecountyand,exceptinthecaseofaminor,hashadtheopportunitytohavetheassistanceofcounselintheproceedingfortheappointmentofthatguardian.”(emphasisadded).

3) UnderORC§2111.12(A)(guardianofminor),“Aminorovertheageoffourteenyearsmayselectaguardianwhoshallbeappointedifasuitableperson.Ifaminorovertheageoffourteenyearsfailstoselectasuitableperson,anappointmentmaybemadewithoutreferencetotheminor’swishes…”(emphasisadded).

4) UnderORC§2111.46.Guardianshipofminors:Whenaguardianhasbeenappointedforaminorbeforesuchminorisoverfourteenyearsofage,suchguardian'spowershallcontinueuntilthewardarrivesattheageofmajority,unlessremovedforgoodcauseorunlesssuchwardselectsanothersuitableguardian.Aftersuchselectionismadeandapprovedbytheprobatecourtandthepersonselectedisappointedandqualified,thepowersoftheformerguardianshallcease.Thereuponhisfinalaccountasguardianshallbefiledandsettledincourt.

Upontheterminationofaguardianshipoftheperson,estate,orbothofaminorbeforesuchminorreacheseighteenyearsofage,ifasuccessorguardianisnotappointedandifthecourtfindsthatsuchminoriswithoutpropercare,thecourtshallcertifyacopyofitsfindingtogetherwithasmuchoftherecordandsuchfurtherinformationasthecourtdeemsnecessary,orasthejuvenilecourtmayrequest,tothejuvenilecourtforfurtherproceedingsandthereuponsuchcourtshallhaveexclusivejurisdictionrespectingsuchchild.(emphasisadded)

UnderORC§2111.06Guardianoftheperson.:

Ifthepowersofthepersonappointedasguardianofaminororincompetentarenotlimitedbytheorderofappointment,thepersonshallbeguardianbothofthepersonandestateoftheward.Ineveryinstancethecourtshallappointthesamepersonasguardianofthepersonandestateoftheward,unlessintheopinionofthecourttheinterestsofthewardwillbepromotedbytheappointmentofdifferentpersonsasguardiansofthepersonandoftheestate.Aguardianofthepersonofaminorshallbeappointedastoaminorhavingnofatherormother,whoseparentsareunsuitablepersonstohavethecustodyoftheminorandtoprovidefortheeducationoftheminorasrequiredbysection3321.01oftheRevisedCode,orwhoseinterests,intheopinionofthecourt,willbepromotedbytheappointmentofaguardian.Aguardianofthepersonshallhavethecustodyandprovideforthemaintenanceoftheward,andifthewardisaminor,theguardianshallalsoprovidefortheeducationofthewardasrequiredbysection3321.01oftheRevisedCode.

i) TheSubcommitteenotedthatthestandardsusedtoestablishorterminate

guardianshiprelationshipsareinsomeinstancesinconsistentwiththosegoverningchildplacementsinthecontextofdomesticandjuvenilepractice,and/orareundefined.Thefollowingoptionsforamendmentwereconsidered:

51  

(1) Options:(a) Clarificationof“necessary”standardof2111.02withcriteriasupporting

thenecessityofaguardianappointment(b) Clarificationof“removedforgoodcause”under2111.46,withdefinition

ofgoodcause.(c) Clarificationofstandardforcertificationtojuvenilecourt(without

propercare),withthefollowingoptionsconsidered:(i) Unsuitable(ii) Unabletoprovidecare

(d) Clarificationoftheprocessforappointmentofguardianwhenparentsfound“unsuitable”orchild’s“interestswillbepromoted”under2111.06;issuesandoptionsconsidered:(i) Whethersuchinstancesshouldrequirecertificationtothejuvenile

court(ii) Definethestandardorcriteriaforafindingofunsuitability

(e) Identificationofstandardformodificationofguardianshipatparent’smotion;optionsconsidered:(i) Bestinterest(ii) Goodcause(iii) Needforguardianshipnolongerexists(iv) Necessityforcontinuedprotectionofchild

ii) Isthereaneedforenhancedoversight?Options:(1) Regularcasereviews(2) GALappointmentongoing

3) JuvenileCourt

TheSubcommitteefocusedonthefollowingstatutesinconsideringhowthelawandprocessesapplicableinjuvenilecourtproceedingmaybemodifiedformoreconsistentandbetteroutcomesforkinshipfamilies.1) RC2151.011Definitions******(19)“Legalcustody”meansalegalstatusthatvestsinthecustodiantherighttohavephysicalcareandcontrolofthechildandtodeterminewhereandwithwhomthechildshalllive,andtherightanddutytoprotect,train,anddisciplinethechildandtoprovidethechildwithfood,shelter,education,andmedicalcare,allsubjecttoanyresidualparentalrights,privileges,andresponsibilities.AnindividualgrantedlegalcustodyshallexercisetherightsandresponsibilitiespersonallyunlessotherwiseauthorizedbyanysectionoftheRevisedCodeorbythecourt. *******(53)“Temporarycustody”meanslegalcustodyofachildwhoisremovedfromthechild’shome,whichcustodymaybeterminatedatanytimeatthediscretionofthecourtor,ifthelegalcustodyisgrantedinanagreementfortemporarycustody,bythepersonwhoexecutedtheagreement.2) RC2151.353Ordersofdispositionofabused,neglectedordependentchild.

*******[TheCourtmay:]

52  

(2)Committhechildtothetemporarycustodyofapublicchildrenservicesagency,aprivatechildplacingagency,eitherparent,arelativeresidingwithinoroutsidethestate,oraprobationofficerforplacementinacertifiedfosterhome,orinanyotherhomeapprovedbythecourt;(3)Awardlegalcustodyofthechildtoeitherparentortoanyotherpersonwho,priortothedispositionalhearing,filesamotionrequestinglegalcustodyofthechildorisidentifiedasaproposedlegalcustodianinacomplaintormotionfiledpriortothedispositionalhearingbyanypartytotheproceedings.Apersonidentifiedinacomplaintormotionfiledbyapartytotheproceedingsasaproposedlegalcustodianshallbeawardedlegalcustodyofthechildonlyifthepersonidentifiedsignsastatementofunderstandingforlegalcustodythatcontainsatleastthefollowingprovisions:

(a)Thatitistheintentofthepersontobecomethelegalcustodianofthechildandthepersonisabletoassumelegalresponsibilityforthecareandsupervisionofthechild;(b)Thatthepersonunderstandsthatlegalcustodyofthechildinquestionisintendedtobepermanentinnatureandthatthepersonwillberesponsibleasthecustodianforthechilduntilthechildreachestheageofmajority.Responsibilityascustodianforthechildshallcontinuebeyondtheageofmajorityif,atthetimethechildreachestheageofmajority,thechildispursuingadiplomagrantedbytheboardofeducationorothergoverningauthority,successfulcompletionofthecurriculumofanyhighschool,successfulcompletionofanindividualizededucationprogramdevelopedforthestudentbyanyhighschool,oranageandschoolingcertificate.Responsibilitybeyondtheageofmajorityshallterminatewhenthechildceasestocontinuouslypursuesuchaneducation,completessuchaneducation,orisexcusedfromsuchaneducationunderstandardsadoptedbythestateboardofeducation,whicheveroccursfirst.

(c)Thattheparentsofthechildhaveresidualparentalrights,privileges,andresponsibilities,including,butnotlimitedto,theprivilegeofreasonablevisitation,consenttoadoption,theprivilegetodeterminethechild’sreligiousaffiliation,andtheresponsibilityforsupport;

(d)Thatthepersonunderstandsthatthepersonmustbepresentincourtforthedispositionalhearinginordertoaffirmtheperson’sintentiontobecomelegalcustodian,toaffirmthatthepersonunderstandstheeffectofthecustodianshipbeforethecourt,andtoansweranyquestionsthatthecourtoranypartiestothecasemayhave.

3) RC2151.42Bestinterestsofchild‐ordergrantinglegalcustody.(A)Atanyhearinginwhichacourtisaskedtomodifyorterminateanorderofdispositionissuedundersection2151.353,2151.415,or2151.417oftheRevisedCode,thecourt,indeterminingwhethertoreturnthechildtothechild’sparents,shallconsiderwhetheritisinthebestinterestofthechild.(B)Anorderofdispositionissuedunderdivision(A)(3)ofsection2151.353,division(A)(3)ofsection2151.415,orsection2151.417oftheRevisedCodegrantinglegalcustodyofachildtoapersonisintendedtobepermanentinnature.Acourtshallnotmodifyorterminateanordergrantinglegalcustodyofachildunlessitfinds,basedon

53  

factsthathavearisensincetheorderwasissuedorthatwereunknowntothecourtatthattime,thatachangehasoccurredinthecircumstancesofthechildorthepersonwhowasgrantedlegalcustody,andthatmodificationorterminationoftheorderisnecessarytoservethebestinterestofthechild.Theissuesidentifiedinrelationtotheseprovisionsandtheresponsiveoptionsdiscussedincluded:

1) Whatstandardapplieswhenanon‐parentmovesthecourtforlegalcustodyunderaseparatecasenumberthanthechildprotectioncase;options:

i. Consolidationii. Ifnot,whatstandardsapply

1. Bestinterest2. Parentalunfitness

2) Confusionastohownon‐parentscaninterveneinthechildprotectioncaseandthenthestandardofproof‐‐‐bestinterestvs.independentfindingofunsuitability(seeabove)

3) Nospecificstandardarticulatedinrelationtoawardoftemporary/legalcustody;bestinterestatallstagesimplied(but2151.01premisesdecision‐makingon“child’swelfareorintheinterestsofpublicsafety”)

4) Whatisthestatusofcaregiverinrelationtoagencyinvolvement/courtoversighta. “InterestedParty”underORC2151.417underA/N/Dordersofdispositionb. Partyinindependentproceedingc. Consolidationappropriate?

5) Ingeneral,whatshouldbethelevelofcourtoversight

a. Shouldoversightendwithawardoflegalcustody?b. OversightincasesofdirectTCtoparents

6) IssuesrelatedtoGrandparentPOAsandCAAS

Therearesignificantlyvaryingopinionsonthethesekinshipoptions.Somestakeholdersargueforexpandedavailabilityandretentionoflimitedcourtoversight.Othershavemisgivingsaboutthearrangementsandopposeexpansion.Optionsdiscussedinclude:i) Expandtoincludeotherpotentialcaregivers

(1) Unlimited(2) Kinshipcaregiversasbroadlydefined(3) Otherrelatives

ii) ChangeDuration/Process(1) Unlimitedduration;reviewonmotion(2) Requireassessmentinallcasesatfiling(3) Provideforcourtoversight

iii) RewriteforClarityiv) Repeal

54  

Section5Recommendations

TheSubcommittee’sfinalrecommendationsforrevisiontotheOhioRevisedCode,andtherationaleforthoserecommendations,areasfollows:

DomesticRelationsCodeRecommendations“CommitmenttoaRelative”

TheSubcommittee’sprimaryconcernsinrelationORC§3109.04“Allocatingparentalrightsandresponsibilitiesforcareofchildren‐sharedparenting”were:

thelackofinclusionofaparentalunsuitabilitystandardinrelationtocommitmentofachildtoarelativepursuanttoholdingsinrelevantOhioSupremeCourtcases;

thevaguenessoftheterm“committoarelative”; thelackofreferencetoanytypeofinvestigationorassessmentofarelativecustodian; thelackofclarityinrelationtobestinterestcriteriaasappliedtoarelativecommitment;

and thelackofprocessformodificationorterminationofanordercommittingachildtoa

relative.TheSubcommitteerecommendsthecreationofanewcodesectionspecifictotheprocedureandstandardsfor“commitmenttoarelative.”Theproposedsectionissetoutbelow.Thereasoningforeachproposedchangeisasfollows:

ORC§3109.04(D)(2):StandardforRelativeCommitmentTheSubcommitteeexpressedconcernrelatingtothestandardforplacementofachildwitharelativeratherthanaparentindomesticrelationscasesunderthissection.Incustodydisputesbetweenparentsandnon‐parentsthatariseinthejuvenilecourt,ashowingofparentalunsuitabilitygenerallyhasbeenrequiredtosupportagrantofcustodytothenon‐parent.Theinconsistencywithcaseprecedentofapplicationofa“bestinterest”standardratherthanan“unsuitablestandard”wasalsoraised.TheSupremeCourtofOhio,inthecaseInrePerales,52OhioSt.2d89,369N.E.2d1047(1977)emphasizedthepolicyofOhiocourtseffectuatingthefundamentalrightsofparentsbylimitingthecircumstancesunderwhichthestatemaydenyparentsthecustodyoftheirchildren,noting“[W]ehaveheldthatinachildcustodyproceedingbetweenaparentandnonparent,acourtmaynotawardcustodytothenonparent‘withoutfirstdeterminingthatapreponderanceoftheevidenceshowsthattheparentabandonedthechild;contractuallyrelinquishedcustodyofthechild;thattheparenthasbecometotallyincapableofsupportingorcaringforthechild; orthatanawardofcustodytotheparentwouldbedetrimentaltothechild.’”

FurtherinconsistencyisdemonstratedbyreferencetoORC§3109.06,whichrelatestothecourt’sauthoritytocertifyingcasestojuvenilecourtinproceedingstoallocateparentalrightsasconferredunderORC§3109.04(D)(2),butusesanunsuitabilitystandardratherthanabestintereststandard.

TheSubcommittee’sconcernsinrelationtotheuseofa“bestinterest”asopposedto“parentalunsuitability”standardinORC§3109.04(D)(2)wereechoedbyjudicialstakeholdersinsurveyresponses.Whenaskedabouttheappropriatestandardforagrantofcustodytoarelativeovera

55  

parent,onerespondernoted: “Expresslymentioningtheparentalunsuitabilitystandardwould,Ibelieve,beveryhelpfulasthecurrentlanguageconflictswithwhatIunderstandtobetheappropriatestandardunderrelevantcaselaw.”Anotherstated“TheStatuteshouldmatchtherequirementsofthePeralesandHockstokdecisions.”

TheSubcommitteethusrecommendsthatthecodebeamendedtofirstrequireaparentalunsuitabilityfindingandthenafindingthatsuchplacementisinthechild’sbestinterestpriortothecommitmentofachildtoarelative.

ORC§3109.04(D)(2):LackofClarityofTerm“Commitment”TheSubcommitteeandcourtstakeholdersnotedthelackofclarityintheuseoftheterm“commitmenttoarelative.”Nodefinitionisincludedforthatterm,noristhetermusedordefinedinothersectionsoftheCoderelatedtochildplacement.Onesurveyrespondernoted:“Itshouldbespelledoutwhat"committing"achildtoarelativemeans.”Subcommitteemembersnotedthatthecommoninterpretationofthistermisthat“commitment”ofachildtoarelativeisequivalenttoanorderoflegalcustodyofthechildbytherelative.

TheSubcommitteethusrecommendsthatthecodebeamendedtospecifythat,ifacourtfindsneitherparentsuitableasaresidentialparentandlegalcustodian,thecourtmayenteranorderplacingthechildinthelegalcustodyofarelative.Inordertofurtherclarifywhatisintendedbysuchorder,theSubcommitteealsoproposesthatthecodebeamendedtoincludeadefinitionof“legalcustody”byreferencetothejuvenilecode.UnderORC § 2151.011(A)(21):

“Legalcustody”meansalegalstatusthatvestsinthecustodiantherighttohavephysicalcareandcontrolofthechildandtodeterminewhereandwithwhomthechildshalllive,andtherightanddutytoprotect, train,anddisciplinethechildandtoprovidethechildwithfood,shelter,education,andmedicalcare,allsubjecttoanyresidualparental rights, privileges, and responsibilities. An individualgranted legal custody shall exercise the rights and responsibilitiespersonallyunlessotherwiseauthorizedbyanysectionoftheRevisedCodeorbythecourt.

TheSubcommitteeconsidered,butrejected,recommendingincludingaspecificoptionforanawardoftemporarycustodytoarelative,asamorepermanentstatusisintendedbytheseprovision.

AssessmentofaRelativeCustodianPracticevariesamongdomesticrelationscourtsastowhetheranassessmentisrequiredpriortothecommitmentofachildtoarelative.Surveyresponderswerealmostevenlydividedontheissue:sixwhoansweredthisquestiondorequireanassessment;fivedonot.Onecourtrespondernoted:“GenerallyIreferprosecasesinvolvingthisissuetotheCourtInvestigator.IgenerallydonotdothisifaGALhasbeenappointedtorepresentthechildreninsuchacase.Insomecases,counselwillaskforpsychologicalevaluationsorcustodyevaluations.Thisisoftendependentuponthepartiesbeingabletoaffordthisbeingdone.”

Anothernoted,“I'veneverdoneit,butIwouldwantahomeinvestigation‐unlessbothparentsweredeceased,forexample,andthechildrenhadnowhereelsetogo.”

56  

Outofconcernaboutchildsafetyandwell‐beingandindeferencetotheopinionsofsurveyresponders,theSubcommitteethusrecommendstheadditionoflanguageprovidingforpermissive,butnotmandatory,assessmentofarelativecaregiverpriortoplacement.TheSubcommitteealsorecommendsthatthecodebeamendedtorequirerelativecustodians,aswellasparents,tofileaffidavitswiththecourtattestingastowhetherthecustodianormembersofthecustodian’shousehold,havebeenconvictedoforpleadedguiltytospecifiedoffenses

ProposedAmendmentsAddingBestInterestsStandardsinRelationtoRelativeCustodians

TheSubcommitteenotedthatthebestintereststandardsarticulatedinORC§3109.04(F)(1)inrelationtodecisionsonallocatingparentalrightshadnospecificapplicationtodecisionstocommitachildtoarelative’scustody,despitetheuseofthebestintereststandardinmakingsuchdecisions.

Forclarityandconsistency,theSubcommitteethusrecommendsthatthecodebeamendedtoaddrelevantbestinterestcriteriatospecificrelativecustodians.

ProposedadditionofaProcessforModificationorTerminationofanOrderCommittingaChildtoaRelative

Thissectioncurrentlycontainsnoprovisionformodificationorterminationofanordercommittingachildtothecustodyofarelative.Inpractice,suchordersaretypicallymadeunderthestandardsapplicabletomodificationoflegalcustodyunderthejuvenilecode.Asonecourtresponderstatedthestandard:“Changeofcircumstancesandbestinterest.”Thatis,infact,thestandardapplicableinthissectioninrelationtothemodificationofanorderallocatingparentalrights.ORC§3109.04(E)(1)(a)statesthatsuchordersmaynotbemodifiedunlessthecourtfinds,basedonfactsthathavearisensincethepriordecreeorthatwereunknowntothecourtatthetimeofthepriordecree,thatachangehasoccurredinthecircumstancesofthechild,thechild’sresidentialparent,oreitheroftheparentssubjecttoasharedparentingdecree,andthatthemodificationisnecessarytoservethebestinterestofthechild.

UnderORC§2151.42(B),anorderoflegalcustodyenteredasadispositioninjuvenilecourtshallnotbemodifiedorterminatedunlessthecourtfinds,basedonfactsthathavearisensincetheorderwasissuedorthatwereunknowntothecourtatthattime,thatachangehasoccurredinthecircumstancesofthechildorthepersonwhowasgrantedlegalcustody,andthatmodificationorterminationoftheorderisnecessarytoservethebestinterestofthechild.

Forconsistencywiththeseprovisions,theSubcommitteethusrecommendsthatthedomesticrelationscodebeamendedtoprovideaprocessformodificationorterminationofanordercommittingachildtoarelativeanda“changeincircumstance/bestinterest”standardforsuchanorder.

Forclarity,theSubcommitteerecommendsanentirelynewsectionincorporatingtheserecommendations,asfollows:ORC§3109.0__Commitmenttocustodyofarelative

(A) Ifthecourtfinds,withrespecttoanychildundereighteenyearsofage,thatneitherparentissuitabletobedesignatedtheresidentialparentandlegalcustodianofthechildandthatitisinthebest interestof thechild tocommit thechild to thecustodyofa relativeof thechild, thecourtmayenteranorderoflegalcustodytoarelativeorcertifyacopyofitsfindings,together

57  

withasmuchoftherecordandthefurtherinformation,innarrativeformorotherwise,thatitconsiders necessary or as the juvenile court requests, to the juvenile court for furtherproceedings. Upon the certification, the juvenile court has exclusive jurisdiction.

(B) Forpurposesof this section, factors thatwouldsupporta findingofunsuitability include thefollowing:

1) theparentabandonedthechild;2) theparenthascontractuallyrelinquishedcustodyofthechild;3) theparenthasbecometotallyincapableofsupportingorcaringforthechild;or4) that an award of custody to the parent would be detrimental to the child.

(C)Priortoenteringadecreecommittingthechildtothelegalcustodyofarelative,thecourtshalldetermine whether the proposed relative custodian is capable andwilling to provide a suitableplacementforthechild,isabletoensurethechild’ssafety,andisabletomeetthechild’sneeds.(D)Indeterminingthebestinterestofachildpursuanttothissection,thecourtshallconsiderallrelevantfactors,including,butnotlimitedto:

1) the recommendations of the child’s parents and/or custodian or caregiver regarding thechild’scare;16

2) the recommendation of the child’s guardian ad litem, if a guardian ad litem has beenappointed;

3) thewishesofthechild,asexpressedbythechildortheattorneyforthechild;174) Whether the proposed placement will interfere with the child’s relationship with the

parent(s);5) ifthecourthasinterviewedthechildinchambersregardingthechild’swishesandconcerns

astotheallocationofparentalrightsandresponsibilitiesconcerningthechild,thewishesandconcernsofthechild,asexpressedtothecourt;

6) thechild’sinteractionandinterrelationshipwiththeproposedrelativecustodian,thechild’sparentsandsiblings,andanyotherpersonwhomaysignificantlyaffectthechild’sbestinterest;

7) thechild’sadjustmenttothechild’shome,school,andcommunity;8) thementalandphysicalhealthoftheproposedrelativecustodian;9) thementalandphysicalhealthofthechild,andanyspecialneedsofthechild;10) thepotentialnegativeimpacttothechildfromremovalfromparentalcustody;11) whether the proposed relative custodian or any member of the proposed relative

custodian’s household has previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to anycriminal offense involving any act that resulted in a child being an abused child or aneglectedchild;whether theproposedrelativecustodianpreviouslyhasbeendeterminedtobetheperpetratoroftheabusiveorneglectfulactthatisthebasisofanadjudicationofchild abuse or neglect; whether the proposed relative custodian or any member of thehousehold of either parent or potential (or proposed) relative custodian previously hasbeenconvictedoforpleadedguilty toaviolationofsection2919.25of theRevisedCode;whethertheproposedrelativecustodianoranymemberofthehouseholdoftheproposedrelative custodian previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to any offenseinvolvingavictimwhoat the timeof thecommissionof theoffensewasamemberof thefamilyorhouseholdthatisthesubjectofthecurrentproceedingandcausedphysicalharm

                                                            16 The Subcommittee suggests that ORC § 3109.04(F)(1) (a) be amended in a manner consistent with this provision.  17 The Subcommittee also suggests that this factor also be added to those the court is to consider in making a best interest determination in relation to allocation of parental rights and responsibilities under ORC § 3109.04(F)(1).  

58  

tothevictiminthecommissionoftheoffense;andwhetherthereisreasontobelievethattheproposedrelativecustodianhasactedinamannerresultinginachildbeinganabusedchildoraneglectedchild;and

12) whether the proposed relative custodian has established a residence, or is planning toestablisharesidence,outsidethisstate.

(E)Thecourtmaymodifyorterminateapriordecreecommittingthechildtothelegalcustodyofarelativeunderthissectionupontherequestofoneorbothoftheparentsortherelativecustodian,oronitsownmotion,wheneveritdeterminesthat,basedonfactsthathavearisensincethepriordecree or that were unknown to the court at the time of the prior decree, that a change hasoccurred in the circumstances of the child or the child’s relative custodian, and that themodificationorterminationisnecessarytoservethebestinterestofthechild.

(F)(1)Forpurposesofthissection,“legalcustody”meansalegalstatusthatvestsinthecustodiantherighttohavephysicalcareandcontrolofthechildandtodeterminewhereandwithwhomthechildshalllive,andtherightanddutytoprotect,train,anddisciplinethechildandtoprovidethechild with food, shelter, education, andmedical care, all subject to any residual parental rights,privileges, and responsibilities. An individual granted legal custody shall exercise the rights andresponsibilitiespersonallyunlessotherwiseauthorizedbyany sectionof theRevisedCodeorbythecourt.

(2) “Residual parental rights, privileges, and responsibilities”means those rights, privileges, andresponsibilities remainingwith the biological parent(s) after the transfer of legal custody of thechild, including, but not necessarily limited to, the privilege of reasonable visitation, consent toadoption, the privilege to determine the child’s religious affiliation, and the responsibility forsupport.

“CertificationtoJuvenileCourt”

TheSubcommitteenotedadditionalareasofconcerninrelationtoORC§3109.06“Certificationtojuvenilecourt,”includingthelackofcriteriatosupportafindingofparental“unsuitability”soastosupportacertificationtojuvenilecourt,andlackof“bestinterest”criteriatosupportajudicialdisposition.TheSubcommitteerecommendsthattheunsuitabilitystandardsofInRePerales,52OhioSt.2d89,369N.E.2d1047(1977),consistentwiththe“relativecommitment”modification.TheSubcommittee’srecommendationsarereflectedinthiseditedre‐draftofORC§3109.06.

RC3109.06Certificationtojuvenilecourt.

(A) Exceptasprovidedindivision(K)ofsection2301.03oftheRevisedCode,anycourt,otherthanajuvenilecourt,thathasjurisdictioninanycaserespectingtheallocationofparentalrightsandresponsibilities for the careof a childundereighteenyearsof ageand thedesignationof thechild’splaceof residenceand legal custodianor inanycase respecting thesupportofa childundereighteenyearsofage,may,onitsownmotionoronmotionofanyinterestedparty,withthe consentof the juvenile court, certify the record in the caseor somuchof the recordandsuchfurtherinformation, innarrativeformorotherwise,asthecourtdeemsnecessaryorthejuvenilecourtrequests,tothejuvenilecourtforfurtherproceedings;uponthecertification,Thejuvenilecourtshallhaveexclusivejurisdiction.

59  

(B) Incasesinwhichthecourtofcommonpleasfinds,basedonapreponderanceoftheevidence,thattheparentsareunsuitabletohavetheparentalrightsandresponsibilities forthecareofthe child or children and unsuitable to provide the place of residence and to be the legalcustodianof the childor children, consentof the juvenile court shallnotbe required to suchcertification. This section applies to actions pending onAugust 28, 1951. Factors thatwouldsupportafindingofunsuitabilityincludethefollowing:

1) theparentabandonedthechild;2) theparenthascontractuallyrelinquishedcustodyofthechild;3) theparenthasbecometotallyincapableofsupportingorcaringforthechild;or4) that an award of custody to the parent would be detrimental to the child.

(C) Inanycaseinwhichacourtofcommonpleas,orothercourthavingjurisdiction,hasissuedan

order that allocates parental rights and responsibilities for the care of minor children anddesignatestheirplaceofresidenceandlegalcustodianofminorchildren,hasmadeanorderforsupportofminorchildren,orhasdoneboth,thejurisdictionofthecourtshallnotabateuponthedeathofthepersonawardedcustodybutshallcontinueforallpurposesduringtheminorityof the children. The court, upon its own motion or the motion of either parent or of anyinterestedpersonactingonbehalfofthechildren,mayproceedtomakefurtherdispositionofthecaseinthebestinterestsofthechildrenandsubjecttosections3109.42to3109.48oftheRevisedCode.Ifthechildrenareundereighteenyearsofage,itmaycertifythem,pursuanttothissection,tothejuvenilecourtofanycountyforfurtherproceedings.Aftercertificationtoajuvenilecourt,thejurisdictionofthecourtofcommonpleas,orothercourt,shallcease,exceptas to any payments of spousal support due for the spouse and support payments due andunpaid for the children at the time of the certification.

(D) Any disposition made pursuant to this section, whether by a juvenile court after a case iscertifiedtoit,orbyanycourtuponthedeathofapersonawardedcustodyofachild,shallbemade inaccordancewithsections3109.04,3109.____, and3109.42to3109.48of theRevisedCode.Ifanappealistakenfromadecisionmadepursuanttothissectionthatallocatesparentalrights and responsibilities for the care of a minor child and designates the child’s place ofresidence and legal custodian, the court of appeals shall give the case calendar priority andhandleitexpeditiously.

ProbateCodeRecommendations

The Subcommittee noted the lack of articulation of specific criteria for a “best interest”determinationinrelationtoORC§2111.02(B)(1),whichreads:“Iftheprobatecourtfindsittobeinthebestinterestofanincompetentorminor,itmayappointpursuanttodivisions(A)and(C)ofthis section, on itsownmotionoronapplicationbyan interestedparty, a limitedguardianwithspecificlimitedpowers.”TheSubcommitteerecommendsinclusionofspecific,relevantcriteriatoguidesuchdeterminations.

InrelationtoORC§2111.06Guardianoftheperson,theSubcommitteenotedconcernwiththelackofdetailinrelationtohow“unsuitabilityofparents”istobedeterminedforpurposedofthissectionandwiththestandardapplicableforafindingthataminor’s“interests”wouldbeservedbytheappointmentofaguardian.18Probatecourtsurveyresponseswereinconsistentinrelationto                                                            18 It should be noted that the probate code does not distinguish relative guardians in any way; thus the amendments recommended are in no way specific to relative guardians, but apply in any minor guardianship. The reasoning of In re Perales and its progeny, including Masitto v. Masitto, 22 Ohio St.3d 63, 488 N.E.2d 857 (1987) is, however, applicable here and apparent in the recommendations.  

60  

thestandardforestablishmentofaguardianship;theresponsestothequestion“whatstandardsortestareappliedtotheestablishmentofaguardianshipofaminor”included:

“Whetherornottheguardianshipappearstobenecessary.” “Strictapplicationofstatute” TheJudge“considersthefilings,theapplicant'sabilitiesandresidencyanddesire,the

investigator'sreports,andtheminor'sopinioniftheyare14andover.” Bestinterestofchild(3)

Basedonitsresearch,discussion,andsurveyfeedbackindicatingthatthereissomeconfusionrelatedtothestatutorystandard,theSubcommitteerecommendsthattheterm“unsuitable”beclarifiedtoincludecriteriaforafindingofparentalunsuitability;specificcriteriaforsuchafindingaresetoutintheproposedrevisionabove.TheSubcommitteealsorecommendssubstitutionoftheterm“bestinterests”for“interests”toinrelationtoafindingthataminor’sinterestswouldbepromotedbyaguardianship,andincludeastandardforsuchafinding.

TheSubcommitteediscussed,butrejected,arecommendationthatallcasesinwhichthereisafindingofparentalunsuitabilityshouldbecertifiedtothejuvenilecourtforfurtherproceedings.Probatecourtsurveyresponsesindicatedthatsuchcertificationisveryrarelydone(seerecommendationsinrelationtoORC§2111.46inrelationtocertificationtojuvenilecourt).

Finally,theSubcommitteeexpressedconcernaboutthelackofastandardforremovalofaguardianfor“goodcause”underORC§2111.46Guardianshipofminors.TheSubcommitteealsonotedthelackofaconsistentstandardforcertificationoffindingsfromtheprobatecourttothejuvenilecourtincasesinwhichaguardianshipterminatesbeforetheminorturns18,ifasuccessorguardianisnotappointedandaminorisfoundtobe“withoutpropercare.”

TheSubcommitteeconsideredvariousoptionsinrelationtothissection,includingincorporatinglanguagethatwouldsupportafindingthattheminorwas“dependent”asdefinedinthejuvenilecode.ForconsistencywithrecommendationsmadeinrelationtocertificationunderORC§3109.06andwithguidanceunderInrePerales,theSubcommitteerecommendsthelanguagesetoutbelow.

RevisionstotheidentifiedcodeprovisionsconsistentwiththeSubcommittee’srecommendationsareasfollows:

ORC§2111.02Appointmentofguardian‐limited,interim,emergency,orstandbyguardian‐nomination.

(A) If foundnecessary, the probate court on its ownmotion or on applicationby any interestedpartyshallappoint,subjecttodivisions(C)and(D)ofthissectionandtosection2109.21,division(B)ofsection2111.121oftheRevisedCode,andtosection2111.06,aguardianoftheperson,theestate, or both, of aminor or incompetent, provided the person forwhom the guardian is to beappointedisaresidentofthecountyorhasalegalsettlementinthecountyand,exceptinthecaseof aminor, has had the opportunity to have the assistance of counsel in the proceeding for theappointment of that guardian. An interested party includes, but is not limited to, a personnominatedinadurablepowerofattorneyundersection1337.24oftheRevisedCodeorinawritingasdescribedindivision(A)ofsection2111.121oftheRevisedCode.

Exceptwhentheguardianofan incompetent isanagencyundercontractwiththedepartmentofdevelopmental disabilities for the provision of protective services under sections 5123.55 to5123.59 of the Revised Code, the guardian of an incompetent, by virtue of the appointment as

61  

guardian, shall be the guardian of the minor children of the guardian’s ward, unless the courtappointssomeotherpersonastheirguardian.

When the primary purpose of the appointment of a guardian is, or was, the collection,disbursement,oradministrationofmoneysawardedbytheveteransadministrationtotheward,orassets derived from those moneys, no court costs shall be charged in the proceeding for theappointmentorinanysubsequentproceedingsmadeinpursuanceoftheappointment,unlessthevalue of the estate, including the moneys then due under the veterans administration award,exceedsonethousandfivehundreddollars.

(B)(1) If the probate court finds it to be in the best interest of an incompetent orminor, itmayappointpursuanttodivisions(A)and(C)ofthissection,onitsownmotionoronapplicationbyaninterestedparty,alimitedguardianwithspecificlimitedpowers.ThesectionsoftheRevisedCode,rules,andproceduresgoverningguardianshipsapplytoalimitedguardian,exceptthattheorderofappointmentand lettersofauthorityofa limitedguardianshallstatethereasons for,andspecifythe limited powers of, the guardian. The courtmay appoint a limited guardian for a definite orindefinite period. An incompetent or minor for whom a limited guardian has been appointedretains all of the incompetent’s or minor’s rights in all areas not affected by the court orderappointingthelimitedguardian.

(2)Ifaguardianappointedpursuanttodivision(A)ofthissectionistemporarilyorpermanentlyremovedorresigns,andifthewelfareofthewardrequiresimmediateaction,atanytimeaftertheremovalorresignation,theprobatecourtmayappoint,exparteandwithorwithoutnoticetothewardorinterestedparties,aninterimguardianforamaximumperiodoffifteendays.Ifthecourtappoints the interim guardian ex parte or without notice to the ward, the court, at its firstopportunity,shallenteruponits journalwithspecificitythereasonforactingexparteorwithoutnotice, and, as soon as possible, shall serve upon the ward a copy of the order appointing theinterimguardian.Forgoodcauseshown,afternoticetothewardandinterestedpartiesandafterhearing,thecourtmayextendaninterimguardianshipforaspecifiedperiod,butnottoexceedanadditionalthirtydays.

(3)Ifaminororincompetenthasnotbeenplacedunderaguardianshippursuanttodivision(A)ofthis section and if an emergency exists and it is reasonably certain that immediate action isrequiredtopreventsignificant injurytothepersonorestateof theminoror incompetent,atanytime after it receives notice of the emergency, the court, ex parte, may issue any order that itconsidersnecessarytopreventinjurytothepersonorestateoftheminororincompetent,ormayappointanemergencyguardianforamaximumperiodofseventy‐twohours.Awrittencopyofanyorderissuedbyacourtunderthisdivisionshallbeservedupontheincompetentorminorassoonaspossibleafteritsissuance.Failuretoservethatorderafteritsissuanceorpriortothetakingofanyactionunderitsauthoritydoesnotinvalidatetheorderortheactionstaken.Thepowersofanemergencyguardianshallbespecified inthe lettersofappointment,andshallbe limitedtothosepowersthatarenecessarytopreventinjurytothepersonorestateoftheminororincompetent.Ifthe court acts ex parte or without notice to the minor or incompetent, the court, at its firstopportunity, shallenterupon its journala recordof thecaseand,with specificity, the reason foractingexparteorwithoutnotice.Forgoodcauseshown,afternoticetotheminororincompetentand interestedparties, andafterhearing, the courtmayextendanemergencyguardianship foraspecifiedperiod,butnottoexceedanadditionalthirtydays.

62  

(C)Priortotheappointmentofaguardianorlimitedguardianunderdivision(A)or(B)(1)ofthissection,thecourtshallconductahearingonthematteroftheappointment.Thehearingshallbeconductedinaccordancewithallofthefollowing:

(1)Theproposedguardianorlimitedguardianshallappearatthehearingand,ifappointed,shallswearunderoath that theproposedguardianor limitedguardianhasmadeandwill continue tomakediligenteffortstofileatrueinventoryinaccordancewithsection2111.14oftheRevisedCodeandfindandreportallassetsbelongingtotheestateofthewardandthattheproposedguardianorlimited guardian faithfully and completely will fulfill the other duties of guardian, including thefilingoftimelyandaccuratereportsandaccountings.

(2) If thehearing is conductedbyamagistrate, theproceduresset forth inCivilRule53shallbefollowed.

(3) If the hearing concerns the appointment of a guardian or limited guardian for an allegedincompetent,theburdenofprovingincompetencyshallbebyclearandconvincingevidence.

(4)Uponrequestoftheapplicant,theallegedincompetentforwhomtheappointmentissoughtorthe alleged incompetent’s counsel, or any interested party, a recording or record of the hearingshallbemade.

(5) Evidence of a less restrictive alternative to guardianship may be introduced, and whenintroduced,shallbeconsideredbythecourt.

(6)Thecourtmaydenyaguardianshipbasedupona finding thata less restrictivealternative toguardianshipexists.

(7) If the hearing concerns the appointment of a guardian or limited guardian for an allegedincompetent,theallegedincompetenthasallofthefollowingrights:

(a)Therighttoberepresentedbyindependentcounseloftheallegedincompetent’schoice;

(b)Therighttohaveafriendorfamilymemberoftheallegedincompetent’schoicepresent;

(c)Therighttohaveevidenceofanindependentexpertevaluationintroduced;

(d)Iftheallegedincompetentisindigent,upontheallegedincompetent’srequest:

(i)Therighttohavecounselandanindependentexpertevaluatorappointedatcourtexpense;

(ii) If the guardianship, limited guardianship, or standby guardianship decision is appealed, therighttohavecounselappointedandnecessarytranscriptsforappealpreparedatcourtexpense.

(D)(1)Ifapersonhasbeennominatedtobeaguardianoftheestateofaminorinorpursuanttoadurablepowerofattorneyundersection1337.24oftheRevisedCodeorawritingasdescribedindivision (A) of section 2111.121 of the Revised Code, the person nominated has preference inappointment over a person selected by the minor. A person who has been nominated to be aguardianofthepersonofaminorinorpursuanttoadurablepowerofattorneyorwritingofthatnature does not have preference in appointment over a person selected by the minor, but the

63  

probatecourtmayappointthepersonnamedinthedurablepowerofattorneyorthewriting,thepersonselectedbytheminor,oranotherpersonasguardianofthepersonoftheminor.

(2)Apersonnominatedasaguardianofanincompetentadultchildpursuanttoadurablepowerofattorney under section 1337.24 or pursuant to section 2111.121 of the Revised Code shall havepreference in appointment over a person applying to be guardian if the person nominated iscompetent,suitable,andwillingtoaccepttheappointment,andiftheincompetentadultchilddoesnothaveaspouseoranadultchildandhasnotdesignatedaguardianpriortothecourtfindingtheadultchildincompetent.

(E)Inmakingabestinterestdeterminationastotheappointmentofaguardianforaminorunderthissection,thecourtshallconsiderallrelevantfactors,includingbutnotlimitedto:

1) therecommendationsofthechild’sparentsand/orcustodianorcaregiverregardingthechild’scare;

2) therecommendationofthechild’sguardianadlitem,ifaguardianadlitemhasbeenappointed;3) thewishesofthechildasexpressedbythechildortheattorneyforthechild;4) whethertheproposedguardianshipwillinterferewiththechild’srelationshipwiththe

parent(s);5) ifthecourthasinterviewedthechildinchambersregardingthechild’swishesandconcernsas

totheallocationofparentalrightsandresponsibilitiesconcerningthechild,thewishesandconcernsofthechild,asexpressedtothecourt;

6) thechild’sinteractionandinterrelationshipwiththeproposedguardian,thechild’sparentsandsiblings,andanyotherpersonwhomaysignificantlyaffectthechild’sbestinterest;

7) thechild’sadjustmenttothechild’shome,school,andcommunity;8) thementalandphysicalhealthoftheproposedguardian;9) thementalandphysicalhealthofthechild,andanyspecialneedsofthechild;10) thepotentialnegativeimpacttothechildofaremovalfromparentalcustody;11) whethertheproposedguardianoranymemberoftheproposedguardian’shouseholdhas

previouslyhasbeenconvictedoforpleadedguiltytoanycriminaloffenseinvolvinganyactthatresultedinachildbeinganabusedchildoraneglectedchild;whethertheproposedguardianpreviouslyhasbeendeterminedtobetheperpetratoroftheabusiveorneglectfulactthatisthebasisofanadjudicationofchildabuseorneglect;whethertheproposedguardianoranymemberofthehouseholdoftheproposedguardianpreviouslyhasbeenconvictedoforpleadedguiltytoaviolationofsection2919.25oftheRevisedCode;whethertheproposedguardianoranymemberofthehouseholdoftheproposedguardianpreviouslyhasbeenconvictedoforpleadedguiltytoanyoffenseinvolvingavictimwhoatthetimeofthecommissionoftheoffensewasamemberofthefamilyorhouseholdthatisthesubjectofthecurrentproceedingandcausedphysicalharmtothevictiminthecommissionoftheoffense;andwhetherthereisreasontobelievethattheproposedguardianhasactedinamannerresultinginachildbeinganabusedchildoraneglectedchild;and

12) whethertheproposedguardianhasestablishedaresidence,orisplanningtoestablisharesidence,outsidethisstate.

ORC§2111.06Guardianoftheperson.

64  

Ifthepowersofthepersonappointedasguardianofaminororincompetentarenotlimitedbytheorderofappointment, thepersonshallbeguardianbothof thepersonandestateof theward. Ineveryinstancethecourtshallappointthesamepersonasguardianofthepersonandestateoftheward, unless in the opinion of the court the interests of the ward will be promoted by theappointmentofdifferentpersonsasguardiansofthepersonandoftheestate.

Aguardianofthepersonofaminorshallbeappointedastoaminorhavingnofatherormother,whose parents are unsuitable persons to have the custody of theminor and to provide for theeducationoftheminorasrequiredbysection3321.01oftheRevisedCode,orwhosebestinterests,intheopinionofthecourt,willbepromotedbytheappointmentofaguardian.Aguardianofthepersonshallhave the custodyandprovide for themaintenanceof theward, and if theward is aminor,theguardianshallalsoprovidefortheeducationofthewardasrequiredbysection3321.01oftheRevisedCode.

Forpurposesofthissection,aparentmaybefoundtobeunsuitabletohavecustodyoftheminorwhenapreponderanceoftheevidenceshowsthattheparentabandonedthechild;theparenthascontractually relinquished custody of the child; the parent has become totally incapable ofsupportingorcaringforthechild;orthatanawardofcustodytotheparentwouldbedetrimentalto the child. Before exercising its jurisdiction to appoint a guardian of aminor, the court shallcomplywiththejurisdictionalstandardsofsections3127.01to3127.53oftheRevisedCode.

ORC§2111.46Guardianshipofminors.(A) Whenaguardianhasbeenappointedforaminorbeforetheminorisoverfourteenyearsofage,

the guardian’s power shall continue until the ward arrives at the age of majority, unlessremoved for good cause or unless the ward selects another suitable guardian. After theselectionismadeandapprovedbytheprobatecourtandthepersonselectedisappointedandqualified,thepowersoftheformerguardianshallcease.Theformerguardian’sfinalaccountasguardianshallthenbefiledandsettledincourt.

(A)(B) Circumstancesthatmayconstitutegoodcauseforremovalofaguardianunderthissectioninclude,butarenotlimitedto,theguardian’sinabilityorfailuretofulfilltheobligationsoftheguardianship;theillnessordisabilityoftheguardian;ortheguardianshipnolongerservesthebestinterestsofthechild.

(B)(C) Upontheterminationofaguardianshipoftheperson,estate,orbothofaminorbeforetheminorreacheseighteenyearsofage,ifasuccessorguardianisnotappointedandifthecourtfindsthattheminoriswithoutpropercarebecausebothoftheminor’sparentsareunabletobelocated,oraredeceased,orareunsuitablecustodiansfortheminorandnosuitablesuccessorguardianhasbeenidentified,thecourtshallcertifyacopyofitsfindingtogetherwithasmuchoftherecordandanyfurtherinformationthatthecourtconsidersnecessary,orasthejuvenilecourtmayrequest,tothejuvenilecourtforfurtherproceedings.Uponthatcertification,thejuvenilecourtshallhaveexclusivejurisdictionrespectingtheminor.

(C)(D) Forpurposesofthissection,aparentmaybefoundtobeunsuitabletohavecustodyoftheminoriftheparenthasabandonedthechild;theparenthascontractuallyrelinquishedcustodyofthechild;theparenthasbecometotallyincapableofsupportingorcaringforthechild;orifan award of custody to the parent would be detrimental to the child.

JuvenileCodeRecommendations

65  

TheSubcommitteenotedthattherearenospecificcriteriaarticulatedinrelationtothe“bestinterest”standardfordeterminingwhetherachildshouldbereturnedtotheparentsuponmodificationorterminationofanorderofdispositionunderthissection.

Ingeneral,ORC§2151.01premisesdecision‐makingon“child’swelfareorintheinterestsofpublicsafety,”butdoesnotincorporatea“bestinterest”standard.ORC§2151.414doescontainalistof“bestinterest”criteriaspecifictoadeterminationwhethertograntamotionforpermanentcustody.

InrelationtoallocationofparentalrightsunderORC§3109.04,detailedbestinterestcriteriaguidethecourts’decision‐making.

Inordertoprovideconsistencyamongthesecodesectionsanddirectionforjudicialdecision‐making,theSubcommitteerecommendstheinclusionofthelistofcriteriasetoutbelow.

ORC§2151.42Bestinterestsofchild‐ordergrantinglegalcustody.

(A)Atanyhearinginwhichacourtisaskedtomodifyorterminateanorderofdispositionissuedunder section 2151.353, 2151.415, or 2151.417 of the Revised Code, the court, in determiningwhether to return the child to the child’s parents, shall considerwhether to do so is in the bestinterestsofthechild.

(B) In determining the best interest of a child at a hearing held pursuant to division (A) of thissection,thecourtshallconsiderallrelevantfactors,including,butnotlimitedto,thefollowing:

1) theinteractionandinterrelationshipofthechildwiththechild’sparentsandsiblings;2) thewishesofthechild,asexpressedbythechild,orthroughthechild’sguardianadlitemorbythechild’sattorney;3) therecommendationsofthechild’scustodianorcaregiver;4) whetherreturntotheparentsisconsistentwiththechild’ssafetyandwell‐being;5) whethertheconditionsthatresultedintheoriginalorderofdispositionhavebeenremedied;6) therecommendationofthechild’sguardianadlitem,ifthechildhasaguardianadlitem;7) thereportandrecommendation,ifany,ofthePCSA.

(C) An order of disposition issued under division (A)(3) of section 2151.353, division (A)(3) ofsection2151.415, or section2151.417of theRevisedCode granting legal custody of a child to aperson is intended to be permanent in nature. A court shall not modify or terminate an ordergrantinglegalcustodyofachildunlessitfinds,basedonfactsthathavearisensincetheorderwasissued or that were unknown to the court at that time, that a change has occurred in thecircumstancesof thechildorthepersonwhowasgrantedlegalcustody,andthatmodificationorterminationoftheorderisnecessarytoservethebestinterestofthechild.

(D) In determining the best interest of a child at a hearing held pursuant to division (C) of thissection,thecourtshallconsiderallrelevantfactors,including,butnotlimitedto,thefollowing:

1) the recommendations of the child’s parents and/or custodian or caregiver regarding thechild’scare;

2) the recommendation of the child’s guardian ad litem, if a guardian ad litem has beenappointed;

66  

3) thewishesofthechild,asexpressedbythechildortheattorneyforthechild;4) Whether the proposed placement will interfere with the child’s relationship with the

parent(s);5) ifthecourthasinterviewedthechildinchambersregardingthechild’swishesandconcerns

astotheallocationofparentalrightsandresponsibilitiesconcerningthechild,thewishesandconcernsofthechild,asexpressedtothecourt;

6) thechild’sinteractionandinterrelationshipwiththeproposedcustodian,thechild’sparentsandsiblings,andanyotherpersonwhomaysignificantlyaffectthechild’sbestinterest;

7) thechild’sadjustmenttothechild’shome,school,andcommunity;8) thementalandphysicalhealthoftheproposedcustodian;9) thementalandphysicalhealthofthechild,andanyspecialneedsofthechild;10) thepotentialnegativeimpacttothechildfromremovalfromparentalcustody;11) whethertheproposedcustodianoranymemberoftheproposedcustodian’shouseholdhas

previouslyhasbeenconvictedoforpleadedguiltytoanycriminaloffenseinvolvinganyactthat resulted ina childbeinganabusedchildoraneglectedchild;whether theproposedcustodianpreviouslyhasbeendeterminedtobetheperpetratoroftheabusiveorneglectfulact that is the basis of an adjudication of child abuse or neglect; whether the proposedcustodian or any member of the household of either parent or potential (or proposed)custodian previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a violation of section2919.25 of the Revised Code; whether the proposed custodian or any member of thehouseholdoftheproposedcustodianpreviouslyhasbeenconvictedoforpleadedguiltytoany offense involving a victim who at the time of the commission of the offense was amemberofthefamilyorhouseholdthatisthesubjectofthecurrentproceedingandcausedphysicalharmtothevictiminthecommissionoftheoffense;andwhetherthereisreasontobelieve that the proposed custodian has acted in amanner resulting in a child being anabusedchildoraneglectedchild;and

12) whethertheproposedcustodianhasestablishedaresidence,or isplanningtoestablisharesidence,outsidethisstate.

 

Section6ConcurrentLegislativeInitiatives

DuringthetimetheSubcommitteewasengagedinconductingresearchandformulatingrecommendations,theOhioGeneralAssemblywasalsoworkingtowardlegislativechangetobenefitkinshipcaregivers.Thefollowingwerekeylegislativeinitiatives:

AmendmentstotheGrandparentPOAandCAAprovisionsOnDecember20,2012,GovernorJohnKasichsignedSubstituteHouseBill279intolaw.Amongotherthings,thebilleliminatestheautomaticterminationofapowerofattorneyorcaregiverauthorizationaffidavitafteroneyearelapsesfromthedatetheaffidavitisnotarized.ThebillalsorepealsprovisionsrelatedtosecondorsubsequentfilingsofaPOAorCAAandcreatesaprocedurebywhichagrandparentwhohascustodyofachildpursuanttoaPOAorCAAmaypetitionajuvenilecourtforcustodyifaparentrevokesthePOAorterminatestheCAA.ThebilldoesnotexpandtheavailabilityofsuchaPOAorCAAtorelativesotherthangrandparents,althoughadifferentsectionofthebillpermitsPCSAstoprovidecareforanabused,neglected,ordependentchildinthehomeofanonrelativeadultwhoma

67  

childorthechild’scurrentcustodianidentifiesashavingalongstandingrelationshiporbondwiththechildorthechild’sfamilythatwillensurethemaintenanceofthechild’ssocialandculturalties.Sub.H.B.279alsospecifies,inconformitywithfederallaw,thataPCSAorPCPAthatreceivestemporarycustodyofachildmustexerciseduediligencetoidentifyandprovidenoticeoftheremovaltoalladultgrandparentsandotheradultrelativesofachild,includingthosesuggestedbytheparents,within30daysoftheremovalinaccordancewithfederallaw.Thebilldoesnotspecifywhatthenoticemustinclude.

SubsidizedkinshipguardianshipsPursuanttoS.B.162,theOhioDepartmentofJobandFamilyServicesengagedinastudyofcurrenttrendsintheplacementofchildrenbypublicchildrenservicesagenciesintorelativecaregiverhomes,includingastudyastowhetherOhioshouldenactlegislationimplementingasubsidizedkinshipguardianshipprogrampursuanttotheFosteringConnectionsAct,whichauthorizedstatestouseTitleIV‐Efundstoenterintokinshipguardianshipassistanceagreements.Suchagreementswouldprovidepaymentstograndparentsandotherrelativeswhohaveassumedlegalguardianshipofchildrenforwhomtheyhavecaredasfosterparentsandforwhomtheyhaveommittedtocareonapermanentbasis.Althoughaworkgrouphasstudiedtheissue,norecommendationsastowhetherOhioshouldadoptsuchaprogramwerefinalizedin2012.Sub.H.B.279directedODJFStodeveloprecommendationsforimplementationofasubsidizedrelativeguardianshipprogram,withapreliminaryreportduetotheGovernorbyDecember31,2012andafinalreportduewithin18monthsofthebill’seffectivedate.