2019 Ohio 389
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Three children (B.R., W.R., A.R.) placed in Stark County JFS temporary custody in Dec. 2016 after prior non‑court intervention and a long history of agency involvement dating to before 2000.
- Case plan required parenting evaluation, drug/alcohol assessment, parenting class, anger management, and stable housing/income; plan was court‑approved and amended, with custody extended into 2017.
- Mother completed drug/alcohol assessment and attended programs but made minimal substantive progress, failed to internalize parenting skills, and showed little insight or responsibility for prior abuse/neglect.
- Visitation was suspended on therapists’ recommendation because visits were counterproductive; mother had no contact with B.R. after March 7, 2017 or W.R. after Sept. 29, 2017.
- Children have significant mental health and developmental needs; foster placements were improving and adoption was possible.
- Trial court granted Stark County JFS permanent custody in June 2018; mother appealed claiming insufficient evidence, improper finding of abandonment, and that court should have extended temporary custody to allow further progress.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court's permanent‑custody finding was against manifest weight / unsupported by evidence | Mother: she made progress and should get six more months to complete case plan | State: mother made only minimal progress, failed key plan elements, and permanent custody is in children’s best interests | Affirmed — competent, credible evidence supported permanent custody and denial of extension |
| Whether withholding/termination of visitation equals abandonment | Mother: agency’s suspension of visits prevented her contact, so she did not "abandon" children | State: mother failed to maintain any contact by other means and voluntarily did not reestablish contact | Rejected mother’s claim — court found B.R. and W.R. abandoned (mother bore responsibility for lack of contact) |
| Whether extension of temporary custody was required | Mother: additional 6 months would permit completion of plan and reunification | State: no clear and convincing evidence of significant progress or reasonable likelihood of reunification within extension period | Court found no clear/convincing basis to extend; denial affirmed |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interest | Mother: preserving parental rights and more time would serve best interests | State: children’s needs, lack of bond or unhealthy bond, and stability in foster care favor permanency | Held: best‑interest factors support permanent custody to agency |
Key Cases Cited
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (Ohio 1978) (standard for reviewing manifest‑weight challenges to factual findings)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983) (framework for weighing evidence and manifest‑weight review)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (manifest‑weight standard discussion)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (clarifies standard of review for manifest‑weight challenges in civil cases)
- In re Smith, 77 Ohio App.3d 1 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991) (discusses severity of terminating parental rights and evidentiary requirements)