2022 Ohio 2346
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- HCJFS filed for temporary custody of A.D. (an autistic, nonverbal, developmentally delayed child with sensory issues) on April 2, 2019; interim custody was granted and A.D. was adjudicated dependent and neglected after father admitted dependency.
- Initial case plan required father to obtain housing, participate in A.D.’s medical/therapeutic care, and complete services to address A.D.’s special needs.
- Father worked as an over‑the‑road truck driver, had unstable housing early in the case, and had infrequent, inconsistent visits; there were multiple periods exceeding 90 consecutive days without contact.
- In April 2021 an incident occurred where father behaved erratically after using marijuana laced with embalming fluid; visits paused and father was involuntarily hospitalized.
- A.D. was placed with a foster family that engaged specialized services (Children’s Hospital, Kelly O’Leary Center); foster mother sought to adopt; A.D. showed behavioral improvement in that placement.
- HCJFS moved for permanent custody (Aug. 2020); a magistrate granted permanent custody (Oct. 2021), the juvenile court adopted that decision (Feb. 17, 2022), and father appealed raising sufficiency of best‑interest evidence and the abandonment finding.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | HCJFS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the record contains clear and convincing evidence that granting permanent custody is in the child’s best interest (R.C. 2151.414) | Insufficient evidence; father had new housing and local employment and could provide a legally secure placement (near KidsLink) | Child is bonded to foster family receiving specialized care; father did not participate in services or medical appointments and lacks insight into A.D.’s needs | Affirmed: court found clear and convincing evidence permanent custody to HCJFS was in A.D.’s best interest |
| Whether father abandoned A.D. (R.C. 2151.011(C) / 2151.414(E)(10)) | Presumption of abandonment rebutted: employment prevented visits and father later resumed contact and secured housing/employment | Father failed to maintain contact for over 90 consecutive days; statute creates a presumption of abandonment regardless of later contact | Affirmed: court found abandonment based on 90+ days without contact and that father did not successfully rebut the presumption |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (no single best‑interest factor is dispositive; court must weigh all relevant factors)
- In re Etter, 134 Ohio App.3d 484 (1st Dist. 1998) (failure to raise specific objections to a magistrate’s decision waives all but plain error)