In re A.M., 2018 Ohio 646

Background

In May 2016 A.M. (age 6½) reported repeated sexual abuse by her mother K.M.’s live‑in boyfriend G.D.; Athens County Children Services removed A.M. and her younger brother E.D. and placed them in foster care.
The juvenile court adjudicated A.M. abused and dependent and E.D. dependent, placed both in temporary custody, and adopted a case plan requiring parental counseling, parent mentoring, visitation, and for J.C. (A.M.’s father) to secure housing and income.
The agency moved in April 2017 to modify disposition to permanent custody, alleging K.M. failed to acknowledge or protect A.M. from G.D., and alleging J.C. had mental‑health and housing issues making him an unsuitable placement.
Evidence at the permanent‑custody hearing: A.M.’s therapist and guardian ad litem recommended against return; caseworkers and a parent mentor testified K.M. repeatedly denied or minimized A.M.’s disclosures and continued contact with G.D. for months after removal; J.C. had recent psychiatric hospitalization and lived with relatives.
The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that returning the children to either parent was not appropriate (citing R.C. 2151.414(E) factors) and that permanent custody to the agency served the children’s best interests; this appeal followed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether granting permanent custody was against the manifest weight of the evidence (parents)	K.M./J.C.: evidence did not clearly and convincingly show children cannot be placed with parents or that permanent custody served the children’s best interests	Agency: parents’ failures (K.M.’s disbelief of abuse; J.C.’s unstable housing and mental health) justify permanent custody	Court: affirmed — record contains clear and convincing evidence supporting statutory findings under R.C. 2151.414(E) and best‑interest factors
Whether the trial court properly found statutory R.C. 2151.414(E) factors (E)(1),(4),(14),(16) satisfied	K.M.: she substantially complied with services and visits; her efforts were sufficient; denial does not equate to inability to protect	Agency: K.M.’s prolonged cohabitation with and denial of perpetrator evidence shows inability/unwillingness to protect; J.C. lacked housing/stability	Court: K.M.’s denial and continued contact with G.D. supported (E)(1),(4),(14); J.C.’s housing/mental‑health issues supported (E)(16) finding
Whether the permanent‑custody award served the children’s best interests	K.M./J.C.: children bonded to mother and siblings; A.M. wanted to return; parents could remedy issues	Agency: children need legally secure, stable placement; parents cannot meet emotional/ safety needs in reasonable time	Court: balancing statutory best‑interest factors, permanent custody to agency was in children’s best interests
Whether the agency made reasonable efforts to reunify before seeking permanent custody (K.M.)	K.M.: agency prematurely sought permanent custody and failed to intensify efforts after G.D. left; should have offered joint counseling and targeted training	Agency: provided case plan, services, parent mentor, counseling referrals; could not intensify reunification while K.M. denied abuse and lived with G.D.; counselor advised against mother‑child joint counseling	Court: reasonable‑efforts finding not against manifest weight — agency acted diligently and safety was paramount

Key Cases Cited

Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179 (standard for manifest‑weight review and deference to fact‑finder)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (parental rights as fundamental liberty interest; standard for termination)
In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538, 2008-Ohio-4825 (clear‑and‑convincing standard in permanent‑custody cases)
In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 2007-Ohio-1104 (court may base placement‑infeasibility finding on any single R.C. 2151.414(E) factor)
In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498, 2006-Ohio-5513 (best‑interest analysis requires weighing statutory factors)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (definition and explanation of weight of the evidence)
In re Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (reviewing trial court’s sufficiency/clear‑and‑convincing proof inquiry)