Ohio's R.C. 2151.313 must be amended to allow the courts to protect the best interest of the children for whom they are in place to serve, even if this means that occasionally a parent who was once adjudged to be incapable of caring for her child, and whose rights were subsequently terminated, may be the best, and often only, option to save that child from the dangers of the foster care system. Part II of this Note will explore the dangers of exposure to the foster care system, illustrate why we need to protect children from prolonged exposure to the system, and highlight Ohio's performance when it comes to permanency planning for children within the system. Part III will explain the statutory framework on which this decision was based and shed more light on the problem created by this decision, as well as present a comparative analysis of how other jurisdictions handle this problem in their respective statutes. Part IV will look to relevant case law for an understanding of the tradition in Ohio's courts of protecting the "best interests" of children, as well as an analysis of the Ohio Supreme Court's reasoning in McBride. In Part V, a solution to this problem will be proposed. Finally, Part VI will conclude.
Note, A Plea for Permanence after Termination of Parental Rights: Protecting the Best Interests of the Child in Ohio, 56 Clev. St. L. Rev. 419 (2008)