In re A.P.
2021 Ohio 2238
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- On Aug. 5–6, 2019 Coshocton County JFS obtained temporary custody of A.P. (b. 2011), H.P. (b. 2014), and L.P. (b. 2016) after allegations of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse and unsafe housing.
- Interviews by caseworkers and reports from foster parents contained consistent disclosures by the children that G.P. (father) and others sexually and physically abused them; medical and photographic evidence of injuries and rashes were noted.
- The children were placed in foster homes and bonded to foster caregivers who expressed willingness to adopt; the guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody to JFS based on the children’s trauma and wishes to remain in their current homes.
- G.P. repeatedly moved out of state or out of area, missed/limited visitation, provided inconsistent contact information, did not complete recommended services, and failed to cooperate fully with the abuse investigation.
- JFS moved for permanent custody on July 6, 2020; after evidentiary hearings (Oct. 13 & 15, 2020) the juvenile court found abandonment, denied a six‑month extension, and on Jan. 5, 2021 granted permanent custody to JFS. G.P. appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (G.P.) | Defendant's Argument (Agency) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether children were "abandoned" under R.C. §2151.414(B)(1)(b) | G.P. contends court erred — he did not abandon the children | G.P. left the area, had >90 days with no contact, failed reunification efforts and failed to cooperate with investigation | Court: competent, credible evidence supports abandonment finding; affirmed |
| Whether granting permanent custody was against manifest weight/sufficiency of the evidence (best interests) | G.P. argues permanent custody is not in children’s best interests | Children are bonded to foster families, express desire to stay, have improved; JFS can provide legally secure permanent placement | Court: best‑interest factors support permanent custody to JFS; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007-Ohio-1104) (no single factor dominates R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) best‑interest analysis; court must weigh listed factors)
- In re Awkal, 85 Ohio App.3d 309 (discussing deference to juvenile court discretion in permanent custody/best‑interest determinations)