2018 Ohio 384
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- CCDCFS sought permanent custody of three children (B.B., C.C., A.C.) after prior dependency findings and concerns including unexplained bruising, lice, malnutrition, and parental mental-health and housing instability.
- The children had been in foster care with the Falls family for several years (over three consecutive years at time of disposition).
- Father previously stipulated to permanent custody in 2014 but this court reversed that disposition for Rule compliance; the case was remanded, services reinstated, and the matter tried again in 2016.
- Father has a documented long history of serious mental-health issues, borderline intellectual functioning, past psychiatric hospitalizations, and inconsistent engagement in treatment; he also had unstable housing for much of the case and limited financial support of the children.
- The juvenile court found R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), (2), (4), and (11) applied (failure/insufficient benefit from case plan services; chronic mental illness; failure to financially support/provide housing; prior involuntary termination of parental rights as to other children) and determined permanent custody to CCDCFS was in the children’s best interest.
- Father appealed, raising insufficiency of clear-and-convincing evidence to exclude reunification; the appellate court affirmed and also addressed compliance with ICWA inquiry requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | CCDCFS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there clear and convincing evidence to grant permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414(D) and (E)? | Father argued the evidence did not exclude reunification under the statutory factors and that he had stable visits and recent housing. | CCDCFS argued Father failed to remedy conditions: inadequate/unstable housing, untreated chronic mental illness, failure to complete case plan, prior terminations. | Affirmed: court found clear and convincing evidence supporting the R.C. 2151.414(D) best-interest factors and (E) impediments to placement with parent. |
| Did Father benefit from or complete case-plan services (R.C. 2151.414(E)(1))? | Father contended he attempted services and had consistent visitation; claimed recent move to suitable housing. | CCDCFS showed Father failed to maintain verified housing, failed to engage in mental-health treatment, and did not demonstrate financial support. | Held: Father failed to benefit from or complete required services; factor (E)(1) applied. |
| Did parents’ chronic mental/ emotional illness prevent adequate care (R.C. 2151.414(E)(2))? | Father minimized current symptoms and said prior treatment was inconsistent due to insurance access. | CCDCFS and witnesses relied on diagnostic clinic report showing history of hospitalizations, multiple diagnoses, and treatment noncompliance. | Held: Chronic mental illness established and supported finding under (E)(2). |
| Was ICWA implicated and did the court comply with ICWA inquiry duties? | Father later claimed Cherokee and Blackfoot ancestry after appeal court inquiry. | CCDCFS required to follow appellate remand; court performed inquiry and found no Native American ancestry established. | Held: Court complied with ICWA inquiry duties; ICWA did not preclude order. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.M.-R., 2013-Ohio-1560 (Ohio App.) (discussing R.C. 2151.414 two-part test for permanent custody)
- In re R.G., 2016-Ohio-7897 (Ohio App.) (noting trial-court duties under the Indian Child Welfare Act in juvenile proceedings)
- In re N.H., 2016-Ohio-1547 (Ohio App.) (requiring a preliminary showing that a custody proceeding involves an "Indian child" to invoke ICWA)
- In re D.S., 2015-Ohio-2042 (Ohio App.) (party asserting ICWA applicability must do more than raise possibility of Native ancestry)