In re A.N.F.
2018 Ohio 3689
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Child A.F., born May 22, 2015, was removed from mother K.B.'s care in Sept. 2015 after a dead man was found in the home; FCCS obtained temporary custody and A.F. has remained in foster care since.
- K.B. has a lengthy history of criminal convictions, multiple incarcerations, past child-welfare involvement (including a sibling placed in permanent custody of FCCS), substance use, and mental-health concerns; prior child deaths and an earlier permanent custody loss for another child are noted in the record.
- In Feb. 2016 A.F. was adjudicated neglected/dependent; a court order found reasonable efforts had been made to prevent removal and set reunification as the permanency goal at that time.
- FCCS filed motions for permanent custody in Aug. 2016 and Oct. 2017 (the latter adding the 12-of-22-months custody ground); a bench trial was held Nov. 27, 2017.
- The juvenile court found K.B. made insufficient progress on case-plan tasks (unstable housing/employment, inconsistent visits and drug screens, incomplete AOD treatment, limited participation in services), and concluded by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody to FCCS was in A.F.’s best interest; judgment granted Dec. 8, 2017.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (K.B.) | Defendant's Argument (FCCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FCCS made reasonable efforts to reunify A.F. with K.B. | FCCS failed to provide reasonable efforts required by R.C. 2151.419, so it could not move for permanent custody under R.C. 2151.413(D)(3)(b). | The record contains a Feb. 9, 2016 judicial finding that reasonable efforts had been made; additionally, reasonable efforts were not required because K.B. previously lost parental rights to a sibling. | Court held reasonable efforts finding was supported by the record and, as a matter of law, reasonable efforts were not required due to prior involuntary termination of parental rights to a sibling. |
| Whether K.B. could challenge the dependency adjudication during the permanent-custody proceeding | K.B. argued the original removal was based solely on her arrest and thus dependency was no longer valid. | FCCS and the court noted the dependency adjudication is a final appealable order and is not subject to re-litigation in the permanent-custody hearing. | Court held K.B. waived challenge by failing to timely appeal the dependency adjudication; adjudication could not be re-litigated. |
| Whether granting permanent custody was against the manifest weight of the evidence (best-interest finding) | K.B. implicitly argued her progress and service engagement supported reunification. | FCCS pointed to long-term case-history, inconsistent compliance, positive foster placement seeking adoption, and the statutory 12-of-22-months custody ground. | Court concluded competent, credible evidence supported the best-interest determination and affirmed the permanent-custody grant. |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (recognizing parental liberty interest in child custody decisions)
- In re D.A., 113 Ohio St.3d 88 (parental termination as last resort; procedural protections required)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (reasonable-efforts requirement does not apply at permanent-custody hearing if proven earlier)
- In re H.F., 120 Ohio St.3d 499 (30-day limit to appeal adjudication; dependency adjudication cannot be relitigated at permanent-custody hearing)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (adjudication of dependency is a final appealable order)
- Karches v. Cincinnati, 38 Ohio St.3d 12 (appellate review must construe evidence favorably to sustain trial court findings)
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (procedural protections for parents in termination proceedings)