In re A.N., 2021 Ohio 4214

Background

CCDCFS removed A.N. (then 12) after Father was hospitalized and left him alone; agency obtained predispositional custody and later temporary custody after an adjudication of dependency. Mother is deceased.
Agency developed a reunification case plan for Father addressing mental-health treatment, medication compliance, substance-abuse services, and parenting/visitation coaching; Father disputed parts of the plan.
During supervised visits Father made repeated negative, judgmental remarks to A.N. (criticizing appearance, disparaging the foster mother’s sexuality, discussing the case and legal proceedings); therapists and the caseworker testified these visits caused A.N. anxiety and psychosomatic symptoms.
Agency suspended visitation and sought permanent custody, arguing Father failed to benefit from services, had sporadic medication compliance and mental-health treatment, and that contact destabilized the child.
At trial A.N. (through an in-camera interview and via guardian ad litem) expressed a wish to remain with/ be adopted by his foster mother; the juvenile court found clear-and-convincing evidence that R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) applied and that permanent custody to the agency was in A.N.’s best interest. Father appealed; the court of appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Father’s Argument	Agency’s Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) (child cannot/should not be placed with parent) was proven	Father: He substantially remedied removal conditions and completed most case-plan services	Agency: Father failed to benefit from services, had inconsistent medication compliance, and his conduct during visits harmed A.N.’s mental health	Court: Affirmed — competent, credible evidence showed E‑factors and that A.N. cannot/should not be placed with Father
Whether Father’s completion of services defeated permanent-custody claim	Father: He completed IOP, parenting modules and engaged in treatment; mental illness alone cannot justify termination	Agency: Completion was incomplete or not shown to have benefitted child; treatment/med compliance was sporadic and too recent	Court: Father’s partial/completed steps did not demonstrate substantial remediation or benefit to A.N.; weight given to ongoing harm and lack of sustained treatment
Whether Father’s speech/religious instruction to child is protected so as to bar termination	Father: Parents have right to communicate moral/religious values; such speech alone cannot justify termination (Pater)	Agency: Father’s communications produced measurable harm to A.N. (anxiety, psychosomatic symptoms); conversations included disparagement and case-related topics	Court: Held that protection does not apply where there is probative evidence those practices adversely affect the child; evidence showed adverse effects
Whether permanent custody was in child’s best interest under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)	Father: Natural-parent rights and service completion weigh against severing rights	Agency: Child thriving in foster home, expresses wish to remain, needs legally secure placement free from stress caused by Father	Court: Best-interest factors support permanent custody to agency (child’s wishes, caregiver bond, custodial history, need for stable/permanent placement)

Key Cases Cited

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (due process and heightened proof required for termination of parental rights)
In re B.C., 141 Ohio St.3d 55 (2014) (procedural and substantive protections required in termination proceedings; child’s best interest paramount)
In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (2008) (definition of clear-and-convincing evidence under Ohio law)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (formulation of the clear-and-convincing standard)
In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (1997) (parental rights must be afforded full protections; termination is serious and exceptional)
In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (1979) (child’s welfare is the polestar in dispositional decisions)
In re Schaefer, 11 Ohio St.3d 498 (1984) (no single best-interest factor is controlling; court must consider statutory factors)
In re Adoption of Ridenour, 61 Ohio St.3d 319 (1991) (permanency, stability, and security as objectives of placement)
In re Smith, 77 Ohio App.3d 1 (1991) (termination compared to death penalty metaphor; parents entitled to all protections)
In re Hitchcock, 120 Ohio App.3d 88 (1997) (discussion of children’s right to parenting and factors bearing on custody)
In re Awkal, 95 Ohio App.3d 309 (1994) (best-interest and placement determinations focus on the child rather than parent)