2021 Ohio 4519
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- A.F. (born 2016) and K.F. (born 2015) were removed from Mother and spent most of their lives in a licensed foster home initially placed about three hours from Cleveland because no closer placement was available.
- S.J., a family friend, was granted legal custody in May 2017 and cared for the children for ~8 months but visitation/placement was later suspended after safety concerns and unexplained injuries; children were returned to the original foster home.
- CCDCFS developed case plans and provided services to Mother and S.J.; Mother completed some services but struggled with stable housing, inconsistent visitation, and was incarcerated by late 2020.
- Children showed strong bonds with the foster parents and anxiety about potential placement changes; GAL recommended permanent custody to the agency as being in the children’s best interest.
- Juvenile court granted CCDCFS permanent custody and terminated parental rights; Mother appealed raising three assignments: unreasonable efforts toward reunification with S.J., ineffective assistance for not pursuing A.T. for legal custody, and that the court ignored S.J.’s successful reunification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (CCDCFS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether agency made reasonable efforts to reunify children with former legal custodian S.J. | Agency placed children far away and hampered visitation, so it failed reasonable-efforts duty toward reunification with S.J. | Agency lacked local foster placements at removal, provided services, facilitated visitation, and responded to safety concerns in S.J.’s home. | Court: Reasonable-efforts findings supported; no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether Mother's trial counsel was ineffective for not pursuing legal custody to A.T. | Counsel should have moved to award legal custody to A.T., an available family-member caregiver. | Counsel did pursue placement changes, but children were bonded to foster parents; pursuing A.T. was not likely to succeed; strategy was reasonable. | Court: No deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland; claim fails. |
| Whether award of permanent custody overlooked S.J.’s progress and best interests of children | Court focused on bond deficit rather than S.J.’s successful reunification with her own children. | Best-interest analysis properly weighed statutory factors (bond, custodial history, stability); children were mostly raised in foster home and showed anxiety about change. | Court: Award of permanent custody supported by clear and convincing evidence; best-interest determination affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (parents’ fundamental liberty interest in custody of children)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-part ineffective-assistance standard)
- In re C.F., 862 N.E.2d 816 (Ohio law on reasonable efforts and agency duties in child-welfare cases)
- In re Schaefer, 857 N.E.2d 532 (Ohio best-interest balancing under R.C. 2151.414(D))
- In re Murray, 556 N.E.2d 1169 (recognition of parents’ liberty interest and state’s authority to protect children)