In re A.C.-B.
2017 Ohio 374
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Child A.C.-B., born Feb. 1, 2013, was removed at birth due to concerns about mother's mental health and father's aggressive behavior; agency obtained temporary custody in April 2014 and the child remained in agency custody through the March 14, 2016 permanent-custody filing.
- Parents required by case plan to complete individual/couples counseling, intensive parenting classes, and remedy unsafe/unsanitary housing (multiple dogs, trash, animal-cruelty charge).
- Parents participated in services (parenting classes, counseling) but agency and providers reported limited progress: mother had unresolved anger issues and parents made decisions contrary to child’s interests; parenting classes were terminated for lack of progress.
- Guardian ad litem and social worker testified the child is bonded to foster family, thriving there, has not expressed desire to return to biological parents, and the foster mother wished to adopt.
- Juvenile court found (1) the child had been in agency temporary custody for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period, and (2) permanent custody to Summit County Children Services was in the child’s best interest; court also previously found agency made reasonable reunification efforts.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | Agency/Father's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory first-prong (12-of-22 months) requirement satisfied | Mother argued trial-court errors in opinion (gender/placement references) suggested possible confusion and improper finding | Agency noted child was in temporary custody from April 2014 through March 2016 (~2 years) meeting the 12/22 requirement | Court affirmed: clear-and-convincing evidence supports 12-of-22 finding |
| Whether permanent custody is in child's best interest (R.C. 2151.414(D)) | Parents claimed substantial compliance with case plan and that evidence did not clearly and convincingly support termination | Agency and GAL emphasized child’s bond with foster family, parents’ limited progress, unsafe housing, and need for legally secure placement | Court held permanent custody to agency supported by clear-and-convincing evidence; best-interest factors favor agency |
| Whether legally secure permanent placement could be achieved without granting permanent custody to agency | Mother argued reunification efforts and compliance made placement with parents possible | Agency relied on persistent parenting deficits and unsafe housing preventing secure placement | Court found legally secure placement could not be achieved without granting permanent custody to agency |
| Whether agency made reasonable efforts to reunify the family | Mother argued agency failed to make reasonable reunification efforts | Agency and record showed magistrate and juvenile-court findings earlier that reasonable efforts were made; mother did not timely challenge those findings | Court presumed propriety of prior reasonable-efforts findings and overruled mother’s argument |
Key Cases Cited
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (1996) (explains two-prong permanent-custody test under R.C. 2151.414)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (1985) (defines clear-and-convincing evidence standard)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for manifest-weight review and deference to factfinder)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (original statement of clear-and-convincing definition quoted in Holcomb)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (discusses when trial court must make explicit reasonable-efforts determination)