## Facts

- In February 2017, the Hamilton County Department of Jobs and Family Services (HCJFS) sought an interim order of custody over a minor child, JNS.
- HCJFS and JNS’s parents reached an agreement tied to a preexisting safety plan: JNS would stay with the maternal grandparents, and the parents would make JNS available for therapy with Cincinnati Children’s Hospital.
- In April 2017, HCJFS filed a juvenile complaint alleging dependency, neglect, and abuse and seeking temporary custody of JNS.
- By stipulation, the parties agreed to an adjudication of dependency. Temporary custody was placed with HCJFS, and JNS was ordered to remain residing with the maternal grandparents.
- HCJFS filed case plans stating that Cincinnati Children’s Hospital would like to begin hormone therapy for JNS to address gender dysphoria and reported suicidal ideation.
- The parents objected to the case plans that referred to hormone treatment. Although HCJFS withdrew the hormone-treatment case-plan provisions, the juvenile court still held a hearing.
- At the hearing, both the parents and HCJFS presented testimony, including testimony focused on medical and mental-health treatment options for JNS’s gender dysphoria.
- After the hearings, the Hamilton County Juvenile Court issued a judicial entry making the final custody determination.

## Issues

1. After JNS was adjudicated dependent and placed with the maternal grandparents under HCJFS’s temporary custody, what custodial disposition best served JNS’s welfare.
2. Whether the juvenile court could consider, in deciding custody and related orders, contested evidence about proposed hormone therapy referenced in agency case plans when the parents objected.
3. Whether and how the juvenile court could address medical decision-making for JNS as part of its final dispositional order in the dependency case.

## Decision

- The juvenile court entered a final dispositional order following the evidentiary hearing and related proceedings.
- The court made a final custody determination for JNS in light of the dependency adjudication, the existing placement with the maternal grandparents, and the evidence presented about JNS’s needs.
- The court addressed disputes raised by the parties concerning proposed hormone therapy referenced in earlier HCJFS case plans as part of the overall disposition.

## Legal Principles

- In a dependency proceeding, a juvenile court’s dispositional task is to make an order that serves the child’s welfare, including placement with a suitable caregiver rather than automatically returning the child to a parent.
- Juvenile courts may consider agency case plans and the evidence presented at dispositional hearings when determining what custody order is appropriate after a dependency adjudication.
- A child-welfare agency’s withdrawal of a proposed case-plan provision does not prevent the juvenile court from hearing and weighing related evidence if the subject remains tied to the child’s care and the requested disposition.
- In crafting a dispositional order, a juvenile court may include terms related to the child’s care while the case remains within the court’s jurisdiction, including terms that clarify who may make decisions for the child and how disputed care questions will be handled.

## Conclusion

In In re JNS, the Hamilton County Juvenile Court resolved a dependency case involving a minor placed with maternal grandparents under agency supervision, where HCJFS case plans referenced proposed hormone therapy for gender dysphoria and the parents objected. After receiving testimony from both sides and holding a hearing despite the agency’s withdrawal of the hormone-therapy case-plan provisions, the court entered its final custody disposition and addressed the disputed medical-care issues within the framework of the dependency proceeding.


In re JNS, Case No. F17-334X Judicial Entry, Slip Opinion (Feb. 16, 2018)