2022 Ohio 4095
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- A.L., born May 1, 2019, was removed from the mother's care after prenatal cocaine use and the mother’s severe, recurrent psychiatric hospitalizations left providers concerned for the child's safety.
- A.L. was initially placed with maternal kin but suffered extensive nonaccidental injuries while in that home (multiple fractures, brain bleed, genital and other injuries) and was then placed with a nonrelative treatment foster family.
- FCCS sought permanent custody in March 2020 (amended in July 2021 to add the 12-of-22-months ground); the mother largely failed to engage with services, visit after July 2019, or provide mental-health/substance-treatment compliance or records.
- At the August 19, 2021 trial the mother repeatedly failed to appear; counsel proceeded in her absence and presented arguments on her behalf. Witnesses (FCCS caseworker, guardian ad litem, foster parent) testified the child was bonded to foster family, had heavy medical needs, and that permanent custody was in his best interest.
- The juvenile court granted permanent custody to FCCS; the appellate court affirmed, finding clear-and-convincing evidence supported statutory grounds (abandonment; 12-of-22 months) and best-interest factors. The court also announced it will no longer accept Anders briefs in permanent-custody/termination appeals.
Issues
| Issue | FCCS (Plaintiff) – Argument | H.L. (Defendant) – Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported awarding permanent custody to FCCS | Mother abandoned the child, did not remedy removal conditions, has chronic severe mental illness and substance issues, failed case-plan obligations; child is bonded to foster and needs legally secure placement | Trial evidence insufficient to meet clear-and-convincing standard (Anders brief argued appeal frivolous but raised this potential error) | Affirmed: statutory grounds (abandonment; 12/22 months) and R.C. 2151.414(E) factors supported finding child cannot/should not be placed with mother and that permanent custody is in the child’s best interest under R.C. 2151.414(D) |
| Whether Anders procedure is appropriate for permanent-custody appeals | Appellate review of these fact-intensive, expedited cases requires active advocacy; Anders is inadequate | Mother’s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief seeking permission to withdraw | Held: Court will no longer accept Anders briefs in cases involving permanent custody or termination of parental rights going forward |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (sets procedure for appointed counsel to seek withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (recognizes parents’ fundamental liberty interest in childrearing)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (1990) (discusses essential parental rights)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (1979) (parental rights subject to child’s welfare; termination permissible when in child’s best interest)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (2006) (no single best-interest factor is to be given controlling weight)