In re A.F.
2012 Ohio 1137
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2012Background
- MCCS filed a complaint in December 2008 alleging A.F. was neglected, abused, and dependent, with birth cocaine exposure alleged.
- A.F. was born October 24, 2008, and Tiffany stipulates A.F. was abused at adjudication on February 2, 2009; case plan adopted.
- A.F. was placed with the Harrisons on January 13, 2009 and has remained in their home throughout the case.
- A case plan from February 2009 outlined four concerns (employment/housing, substance abuse, parenting/psychological evaluation) and a visitation plan.
- An August 2010 amended case plan largely mirrored the original plan, with minor changes; Tiffany repeatedly failed to complete key requirements.
- In June 2011 the trial court granted MCCS permanent custody; court found MCCS made reasonable efforts and that A.F. could not be returned to Tiffany in a reasonable time and that permanent custody was in A.F.’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCCS made reasonable efforts to reunite Tiffany and A.F. | Flournoy contends MCCS failed to assist admission to inpatient treatment and to facilitate visitation. | MCCS argues it tailored case plan efforts, pursued available treatments, and reasonably facilitated visitation. | MCCS made reasonable and diligent efforts to reunite. |
| Whether permanent custody to MCCS is in A.F.'s best interest | Flournoy argues best interests favored reunification with mother. | MCCS asserts best interests favor permanent custody due to bonding with Harrisons and mother's ongoing noncompliance. | Permanent custody to MCCS is in A.F.'s best interest. |
| Whether A.F. could be returned to Tiffany in a reasonable time | Flournoy contends conditions could be remedied timely with proper treatment and support. | MCCS contends there was not a reasonable time to place with Tiffany given noncompliance and ongoing issues. | A.F. could not be placed with Tiffany in a reasonable time. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (Ohio 1997) (parents' rights are fundamental but not absolute in custody cases)
- In re Murray, 452 U.S. 745 (U.S. Supreme Court 1990) (due process standards in parental rights)
- In re Sorg, 2002-Ohio-2725 (3rd Dist. 2002) (agency must prove reasonable reunification efforts under R.C. 2151.419)
- In re Leveck, 2003-Ohio-1269 (3rd Dist. 2003) (case plans and diligence in reunification efforts)
- In re Goodwin, 2008-Ohio-5399 (3rd Dist. 2008) (R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) factors and clear and convincing standard)
- In re D.M., 2009-Ohio-4112 (3rd Dist. 2009) (two-prong analysis for permanent custody under 2151.414)