In re A.D.M.
2017 Ohio 1432
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Mother (B.V.) tested positive for multiple controlled substances at child's birth; newborn A.D.M. showed withdrawal. Mother left hospital early. Father unknown.
- Juvenile court adjudicated A.D.M. dependent and placed the child in Highland County JFS (HCJFS) temporary custody shortly after birth; child remained with same foster family.
- Mother admitted dependency, had limited contact (one medical visit in Feb 2016), multiple criminal convictions, and was incarcerated at hearing with planned release Jan 2017.
- HCJFS moved for permanent custody alleging abandonment; foster parents were bonded with the child and willing to adopt.
- Trial court found abandonment under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(b) and, weighing statutory best-interest factors, granted HCJFS permanent custody despite some case-plan compliance by mother.
- Mother appealed, arguing (1) the court failed to properly credit her case-plan efforts and (2) HCJFS erred by not filing an amended adoption plan before seeking permanent custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (B.V.) | Defendant's Argument (HCJFS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court's best-interest finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence because it undervalued mother’s case-plan compliance | Court overlooked/undervalued mother’s recent efforts in treatment and programming; compliance favors reunification | Child needs legally secure, permanent placement now; mother had minimal contact, history of substance abuse and criminality, and incarceration undermined ability to parent | Affirmed: Court properly considered case-plan compliance but found it insufficient to overcome abandonment and best-interest concerns; decision not against manifest weight. |
| Whether HCJFS must file an updated case plan with adoption goals before court may grant permanent custody | Permanent custody should not be granted because HCJFS failed to timely file an amended case plan showing adoption efforts | Statute does not require the agency to wait to update case plan before court rules on permanent custody motion | Affirmed: Following Ohio Supreme Court precedent, updated adoption plan is not a prerequisite to granting permanent custody. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (clarifies manifest-weight review and deference to trial-court factfinding)
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (2008) (requires clear and convincing evidence for permanent-custody findings)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (recognizes fundamental parental liberty interest subject to child's welfare)
- Trickey v. Trickey, 158 Ohio St. 9 (1952) (emphasizes trial court's advantage in evaluating custody credibility)
- In re T.R., 120 Ohio St.3d 136 (2008) (holds agency need not file updated adoption plan before the juvenile court rules on a permanent custody motion)