In re A.J.
2018 Ohio 4941
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- A.J., born Nov. 14, 2015, was removed from mother after mother failed to obtain court-ordered substance-abuse treatment and maternal grandmother withdrew from kinship care; A.J. has remained with the same foster family since removal (June 2017).
- Father was identified as biological father in Oct. 2017; at that time he was incarcerated on a drug-possession sentence.
- FCCS sought and obtained temporary custody, adjudication (neglect/dependency), and in Mar. 2018 moved for permanent custody, arguing abandonment and that permanent custody was in the child’s best interest.
- Father visited A.J. twice after paternity was established (Mar. 13 and Mar. 20, 2018) and had no contact for 119 days before the Jul. 17, 2018 permanent-custody hearing; FCCS terminated further visitation after A.J. showed behavioral regression following those visits.
- Paternal great-aunt (Aunt) sought legal custody pro se but had never met A.J. in person and lived out-of-state (Maryland); guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody to FCCS; juvenile court granted permanent custody to FCCS and denied Aunt’s custody complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | FCCS/Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether father abandoned child under R.C. 2151.011(C) | Father argued he did not abandon A.J.; contested timing and blamed termination of visitation by FCCS | Father failed to visit or maintain contact for >90 days (119 days); visits were ended after child regression; abandonment statutory presumption applies | Court: Affirmed abandonment finding; >90 days no contact supported conclusion |
| Whether permanent custody was supported by sufficient, clear-and-convincing evidence / not against manifest weight | Father argued evidence insufficient and against manifest weight; claimed process was unfair and he never intended abandonment | FCCS (and GAL) showed child bonded with foster family, medical/developmental needs addressed, foster parents open to adoption, and no parental contact; evidence satisfies best-interest factors | Court: Permanent custody to FCCS affirmed; not against manifest weight; best-interest factors satisfied |
| Whether granting Aunt legal custody would better serve child’s best interest | Father contended Aunt should get custody so he could see child | Aunt had never met A.J., limited contact only by video calls, lived in Maryland, declined offered modest steps to engage (e.g., email/photos), and visitation scheduling impracticable | Court: Denied Aunt’s custody; placement with Aunt not in A.J.’s best interest |
| Whether FCCS improperly terminated father’s visitation without medical recommendation | Father said termination was unjustified and visitation should have continued or been conditioned on medical recommendation | FCCS terminated visits because both post-visit times produced significant behavioral regression lasting days and required medical attention; agency discretion to suspend visits | Court: Termination proper; no requirement that medical professional recommend termination |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (state must prove termination-standard by clear and convincing evidence before parental rights are terminated)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (standard for manifest-weight review and deference to factfinder in resolving evidentiary conflicts)