2021 Ohio 1982
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Wayne County Children Services Board (CSB) removed three children from Mother on Sept. 21, 2018; all were adjudicated dependent and placed in CSB temporary custody by Dec. 31, 2018.
- Case plan required parents to secure stable housing, obtain mental-health assessments and follow recommendations, attend parenting classes, maintain protective daycare, and ensure children’s counseling/speech therapy.
- Mother had inconsistent engagement: missed speech therapy and daycare scheduling, failed to enroll youngest in preschool, and lost extended placement of the youngest child; Father did not engage early and exhibited substance/domestic-violence history and limited cognitive functioning.
- CSB filed for permanent custody on July 27, 2020; the trial court found the R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) “12-of-22 months” ground satisfied and that permanent custody was in the children’s best interest.
- Parents appealed, arguing (1) COVID-19 tolling/restrictions excused or required delay of the 12-of-22 analysis and impeded service completion, and (2) the best-interest finding was not supported by clear-and-convincing evidence/was against the manifest weight.
- The Ninth District affirmed: most of the relevant 12-of-22 period predated COVID restrictions, parents had prolonged failures to comply with services/visits, and CSB could not identify a safe parental or kinship placement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether COVID-19 tolling or pandemic-related limits barred use of the R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) “12 of 22” ground or justified a continuance/extension | Mother: COVID tolling and pandemic restrictions curtailed reunification; court should have given more time or continued hearing | CSB: Statutory deadlines control; much of the 12-of-22 period (Nov 2018–Mar 2020) occurred before COVID limits, and court lacked authority to extend beyond statutory limits absent good cause | Court: Denied — statutory timing governed; parents had >15 months of pre-COVID services, so COVID did not negate the 12-of-22 ground or require continuance |
| Whether clear-and-convincing evidence supported best-interest finding (manifest-weight challenge) | Parents: CSB impeded service completion (Father) and evidence did not establish permanent custody was in children’s best interest (Mother) | CSB: Parents repeatedly missed visits, failed to ensure therapy/daycare, lacked stable housing/support, and children needed permanence and ongoing services | Court: Affirmed — record shows inconsistent parental engagement, inadequate housing/support, ongoing therapy needs, no suitable kin placement; trial court did not abuse discretion or lose its way |
Key Cases Cited
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (two-prong permanent-custody test requires clear-and-convincing proof of statutory grounds and best interest)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (definition of clear-and-convincing evidence)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (standard for clear-and-convincing evidence)
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (12-of-22 calculation must exist when agency files motion for permanent custody)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (standard for manifest-weight review in civil cases)
- In re D.A., 113 Ohio St.3d 88 (parental cognitive limitations may be considered but cannot be the sole basis for terminating rights)