2023 Ohio 4423
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- In June 2020 CCDCFS removed three children (then ages 4–6) and obtained emergency and then temporary custody after adjudications of abuse/neglect; the agency previously received juvenile-court findings that it made reasonable efforts to reunify.
- The children had been in agency custody for nearly three years at the May 2023 permanent-custody hearing; A.F. had prior Michigan CPS involvement as an infant and the family experienced instability and multiple foster placements.
- The children exhibit significant behavioral and mental-health needs (therapy, medications); A.F. displayed sexualized and parentified behaviors and made allegations of sexual and physical abuse against adults in caregivers’ homes.
- Mother lived in Michigan, completed parenting classes and supervised visits, and later had extended/overnight visits; after a week-long visit in Dec. 2022–Jan. 2023, A.F. alleged Mother’s boyfriend (Davis) sexually assaulted her in Mother’s home; CCDCFS found the allegation indicated.
- CCDCFS and the GAL asserted Mother repeatedly failed to follow safety plans (separate sleeping for A.F., excluding step‑grandfather), failed to consistently manage medications/behaviors, and minimized abuse allegations; the juvenile court granted permanent custody to CCDCFS and denied Mother legal custody.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | CCDCFS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CCDCFS made reasonable efforts to reunify | Agency obstructed reunification; should have placed children closer or subsidized travel | Agency previously found to have made reasonable efforts; offered case plan, services, supervised and unsupervised visits; removal from Michigan relative was necessary | Court: prior findings suffice; record shows clear-and-convincing evidence of reasonable efforts; claim overruled |
| Whether permanent custody was against the manifest weight / not in children’s best interests | Permanent custody inappropriate; children’s best interests not established | Children in agency custody >2 years; Mother failed to remedy conditions; safety risks (sex‑abuse allegation) and GAL recommended PC | Court: R.C. 2151.414(D)(2) and (E) factors satisfied by clear-and-convincing evidence; best-interest finding affirmed |
| Whether foster parent’s unsworn statement was improper evidence | Unsigned/unsworn foster‑parent statement should be excluded; deprived Mother of cross‑examination | No contemporaneous objection at trial; statement was brief and not outcome‑determinative | Court: objection forfeited; no plain error because outcome unchanged; claim overruled |
| Whether court failed to consider each child separately | Each child has distinct needs and required individualized analysis | Children are close in age, share similar therapeutic/safety needs, and the findings applied to all | Court: no abuse of discretion; joint analysis appropriate here; claim overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (recognizes fundamental parental‑rights liberty interest and heightened procedural protections)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (defines clear‑and‑convincing evidence standard)
- In re Hoffman, 97 Ohio St.3d 92 (describes severity of terminating parental rights)
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (parents entitled to procedural and substantive protections)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (discusses reasonable‑efforts issues at permanent‑custody hearings)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (no single R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) factor is conclusive; court must consider listed factors)
- State v. Hackett, 164 Ohio St.3d 74 (explains abuse‑of‑discretion standard for judicial decisions)