2023 Ohio 938
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Cuyahoga County Children and Family Services (CCDCFS) filed neglect/dependency complaints for five siblings on Sept. 24, 2020; children were placed in temporary custody and then with their paternal grandparents.
- Agency moved to modify temporary custody to permanent custody on Mar. 16, 2022; hearing held June 13, 2022; magistrate and juvenile court granted permanent custody to the agency on clear-and-convincing-evidence grounds.
- Mother (M.B.) pleaded guilty to multiple felonies, including six counts of endangering children and offenses under R.C. 2907.31; criminal sentence included community control and a no-contact order prohibiting contact with her children.
- Evidence at the hearing: children bonded with grandparents, needs (medical/mental health) met, guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody, mother completed substance-abuse and parenting programs but had no contact with children due to the criminal no-contact order.
- Juvenile court found statutory custody grounds satisfied (children in agency custody 12+ months of a consecutive 22-month period) and relied on R.C. 2151.414(E)(6) (parents convicted of offenses where child was a victim) and on the court’s finding that placement with the parents posed a threat to the children’s safety.
- Mother appealed, arguing the permanent-custody award was against the manifest weight of the evidence because the court relied on her convictions without a separate finding of ongoing risk and she had completed case-plan services and demonstrated sobriety; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court’s award of permanent custody was against the manifest weight of the evidence | M.B.: court relied on criminal convictions alone without a proper finding of ongoing risk; she completed services and demonstrated sobriety | CCDCFS: statutory grounds present (12+ months in custody and convictions under R.C. 2151.414(E)(6)); no-contact sentence supports ongoing risk; best-interest factors favor permanent custody | Affirmed — record contains competent, credible evidence; court made explicit finding that the nature/likelihood of recurrence made placement a threat to the children’s safety |
| Whether convictions listed in R.C. 2151.414(E)(6) require a separate ongoing-danger finding before denying placement | M.B.: conviction alone insufficient; court must independently find ongoing risk | CCDCFS: statute and record permit the court to find parents cannot/should not have custody where convictions apply and evidence shows threat (including sentencing conditions) | Affirmed — court made the required finding and victims’ status plus no-contact order supported inability to place children with parents |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard explanation)
- State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (Ohio 1980) (definition and discussion of "abuse of discretion")
- Lansdowne v. Beacon Journal Publishing Co., 32 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio 1987) (discussion of standard for clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Awkal, 95 Ohio App.3d 309 (8th Dist. 1994) (clear-and-convincing-evidence standard explanation in juvenile context)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (Ohio 2006) (R.C. 2151.414(D) best-interest factors and their relative weight)
- Johnson v. Abdullah, 166 Ohio St.3d 427 (Ohio 2021) (clarification of abuse-of-discretion review)