In re A.M.Z.
2019 Ohio 3499
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Agency obtained emergency temporary custody of three older children in 2017 due to homelessness, drug use, domestic violence, and criminal activity by the parents; the children were adjudicated dependent (one also neglected). The agency later moved for permanent custody; the magistrate granted it and the juvenile court adopted the decision.
- During those proceedings Mother gave birth to twins in late 2018; both mother and twins tested positive for cocaine at birth. The twins were placed with maternal relatives and were adjudicated dependent and neglected; the juvenile court later granted the agency permanent custody of the twins.
- Mother had limited and decreasing visitation, incomplete compliance with case-plan requirements (resisted assessments, did not complete recommended treatment, failed random drug screens), and unstable housing and income; Father had anger issues and both parents had criminal/incarceration history.
- Foster/maternal-relative placements were stable; the caseworker and GAL recommended permanent custody as serving the children’s best interests.
- The appeal (consolidated for all five children) challenges only the juvenile court’s finding that permanent custody was in the children’s best interests and that statutory grounds for termination were established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported finding that permanent custody was in the children’s best interests | Mother/children argued mother made some case-plan progress, visited appropriately, and sought to remain with parent or family | Agency argued parents made only partial progress, failed substance‑abuse and mental‑health requirements, had unstable housing, and placements were stable and adoption‑likely | Court held clear and convincing evidence supported best‑interests finding and affirmed permanent custody |
| Whether statutory ground under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) / (E) existed (children cannot/should not be placed with parents within reasonable time) | Mother argued speed of termination and partial compliance undermined statutory finding | Agency cited parents’ repeated failure to complete plan, chronic substance abuse (twins born exposed), prior termination of parental rights to older children, incarcerations, and lack of a viable kinship placement | Court held record met clear and convincing evidence standard under R.C. 2151.414(E) (including prior termination for older children), so statutory ground was satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (Ohio 2008) (defines clear and convincing evidence standard for parental‑termination proceedings)