In re A.B.
2013 Ohio 3818
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- CCDCFS removed A.B. (b. Sept. 4, 2006) from father’s home after referrals that father could not care for her; mother was incarcerated. Temporary custody granted Sept. 2010; father admitted amended complaint in Jan. 2011 and child adjudicated dependent.
- Case plan sought reunification; father required to complete mental-health and substance-abuse assessments and treatment.
- Father completed assessments and outpatient substance-abuse treatment but had positive marijuana tests after discharge, refused further testing and refused to re-engage in recommended treatment.
- Father largely disengaged from visitation: no visits from Mar–Dec 2012, resumed in Jan 2013; he also at one point indicated a preference that relatives care for A.B.
- CCDCFS identified a potential adoptive placement; guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody for CCDCFS.
- Trial court granted CCDCFS’s motion for permanent custody (March 27, 2013); father appealed arguing R.C. 2151.414(E) not proven and decision against manifest weight of evidence. Appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | CCDCFS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds under R.C. 2151.414 existed to permit termination of parental rights | Father argued R.C. 2151.414(E) conditions were not proven by clear and convincing evidence | CCDCFS relied on R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d): child had been in agency temporary custody 12+ months of a 22-month period, satisfying a statutory ground for permanent custody | Court held (B)(1)(d) plainly satisfied; (E) findings unnecessary when (d) is met |
| Whether permanent custody is in child’s best interest under R.C. 2151.414(D) | Father argued the judgment was against manifest weight; sought legal custody instead | CCDCFS pointed to father’s substance relapse, refusal of further testing/treatment, lengthy periods without visitation, GAL recommendation, and an identified adoptive placement | Court held sufficient clear and convincing evidence supported best-interest finding; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163, 818 N.E.2d 1176 (Ohio 2004) (when a (B)(1)(d) ground is established, (E)-factor findings are not required for termination of parental rights)