In re A.B.
2015 Ohio 3247
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Three children (A.B., b.2009; G.B., b.2010; J.B., b.2013) were placed in Hamilton County JFS custody after medical/neglect concerns; all three have ongoing special medical/therapeutic needs.
- JFS developed a reunification case plan (assessments, parenting education, attendance at medical appointments, IFRS, supervised visitation).
- Parents made inconsistent progress: some appointments attended and limited unsupervised overnights, but missed numerous visits, failed to consistently attend medical appointments, and demonstrated gaps in understanding and administering care (including improper medication administration).
- JFS withdrew a prior motion to return the older children after negative feedback during unsupervised visits, then moved for permanent custody; the guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody.
- A magistrate granted permanent custody to JFS; the juvenile court adopted that decision. Parents appealed, arguing sufficiency and manifest-weight issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether granting permanent custody was in the children’s best interests under R.C. 2151.414(D) | Parents: They love the children, made case-plan progress, and bonded during visitation; JFS previously sought return, showing progress. | JFS/State: Parents were unable to meet the children’s special needs, missed appointments, lacked stable housing and reliable visitation, and children thrived in foster care. | Court: Best-interest finding supported by clear and convincing evidence; parents’ love and partial progress did not overcome demonstrated inability to care for special needs. |
| Whether one of the R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) conditions was met for each child (12-of-22 or inability to place) | Parents: Insufficient evidence to show statutory grounds for termination as to J.B.; overall progress undermines statutory findings. | JFS/State: A.B. and G.B. met the 12-of-22 rule; J.B. could not be placed with parents within a reasonable time under (B)(1)(a) due to parents’ failure to remedy conditions. | Court: A.B. and G.B. met the 12-of-22 requirement; sufficient evidence under (B)(1)(a) justified permanent custody for J.B. |
| Whether the juvenile court erred in making findings given appellate standards (sufficiency and manifest weight) | Parents: The judgment was against the manifest weight and not supported by sufficient evidence. | JFS/State: There was competent, credible, and clear-and-convincing evidence supporting both statutory prongs; defer to factfinder. | Court: Applied Eastley/Thompkins standards; evidence was legally sufficient and not against the manifest weight; no miscarriage of justice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (distinguishes sufficiency from weight-of-evidence review and sets standards for Civil clear-and-convincing review)
- Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (defines manifest-weight review principles)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (1984) (presumption in favor of the factfinder when weighing evidence)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (2006) (no single best-interest factor is dispositive in permanent-custody analysis)