In re A.M.
2017 Ohio 911
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- A.M., born August 15, 2014, was adjudicated a dependent child and placed in emergency temporary custody of Summit County Children Services Board (CSB); paternity later established as Samuel R. (Father).
- Mother had a long history of substance abuse and mental‑health issues; she participated in multiple treatment programs (structured and less structured) with intermittent success and several relapses.
- Father was incarcerated for nearly the entirety of the proceedings, had minimal contact with A.M., and remained incarcerated with about a year left at the time of the permanent‑custody hearing.
- CSB sought permanent custody after A.M. had been in agency temporary custody for at least 12 of the prior 22 months; foster parents (who had adopted A.M.’s half‑sibling) wanted to adopt A.M.
- The juvenile court denied Father’s motion for a six‑month extension, found reasonable efforts and visitation issues were not prejudicial, and awarded permanent custody of A.M. to CSB; Father appealed five issues, Mother’s appeal was dismissed for failure to file a brief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's (Father's) Argument | Defendant's (CSB/Trial Court) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Denial of six‑month extension of temporary custody | Extension was warranted because Mother had made significant case‑plan progress and reunification was reasonably likely within six months | Parents had not substantially complied; Mother continued recent substance use, unstable housing, poor visitation; case near two‑year mark so extension would be futile | Denial affirmed — no error in refusing extension |
| 2) Failure to make reasonable reunification/kinship efforts | CSB failed to (a) bring A.M. to visit Father in prison, (b) fully explore kinship with Mother’s brother, (c) unlawfully reduced Mother’s visitation | (a) CSB lacked resources; Father failed to visit when available; (b) brother had no meaningful relationship, didn’t pursue custody; (c) unilateral change brief and not prejudicial overall | No reversible error — reasonable‑efforts claim and kinship claims rejected; visitation change not prejudicial |
| 3) Best‑interest finding / manifest weight of evidence | Award of permanent custody was against the manifest weight; argued parents had made progress | Court relied on Mother’s repeated relapses, instability, lack of housing/adequate income, Father’s incarceration and lack of relationship, absence of relatives seeking custody, and child’s bond with foster home | Affirmed — record supports permanent custody as being in child’s best interest |
| 4) Mother substantially completed case plan | Mother substantially complied and thus custody should not be terminated | Mother only maintained sobriety in structured settings, relapsed in less structured settings, lacked stable housing and income, and did not remedy removal causes | Rejected — Mother had not substantially completed the plan or remedied core problems |
| 5) Admission of testimony about Mother’s prior case | Testimony about prior child (S.H.) prejudiced Mother and should have been excluded | Court limited testimony to treatment similarities and not legal outcomes; parents had stipulated facts about prior dependency; no showing court relied on inadmissible evidence | Affirmed — no prejudice shown; testimony appropriately limited |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (State must make reasonable reunification efforts before terminating parental rights)
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (Ohio 1996) (two‑prong permanent custody test: R.C. 2151.414(E) and (D) standards)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (standard for manifest‑weight review)
- State v. Richey, 64 Ohio St.3d 353 (Ohio 1992) (presumption that trial judge considered only relevant, admissible evidence)