In re A.S.
2021 Ohio 218
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- A.S., born December 2010, was removed August 2016 after reports of physical and sexual abuse, severe weight loss, and environmental neglect; FCCS obtained emergency temporary custody.
- The juvenile court adopted a case plan for mother (S.P.) requiring mental-health treatment, random drug screens, parenting classes, AOD and anger-management services, and stable housing/visitation; mother missed most plan components.
- Mother did not visit A.S. for nearly two years (Apr 2017–Mar 2019) but later reengaged; mother obtained housing shortly before trial and admitted current marijuana use and lack of mental-health treatment.
- A.S. remained continuously in FCCS custody for over three years, was treated for ADHD and trauma-related issues, and was strongly bonded to her foster mother; A.S. expressed a desire to be adopted by her foster parent.
- FCCS moved for permanent custody; after a November 25, 2019 hearing the juvenile court granted permanent custody to FCCS and terminated parental rights; mother appealed arguing the decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (FCCS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court's grant of permanent custody was against the manifest weight of the evidence (i.e., whether permanent custody was in the child’s best interest). | Evidence showed A.S. had been in agency custody 12+ months, was bonded to foster parent, had ongoing treatment needs, and mother had not remedied the conditions that led to removal—so permanent custody is in best interest. | Mother argued she had made progress (secured housing, reengaged in visits) and the court should weigh her compliance more favorably; thus the decision was against the manifest weight. | Affirmed. The court found competent, credible evidence supporting best-interest findings and concluded grant of permanent custody was not against the manifest weight. |
| Whether mother’s partial compliance with the case plan required denial of FCCS’s permanent-custody motion. | Partial compliance was insufficient: mother failed to complete mental-health treatment, AOD, and parenting requirements and lacked understanding of child’s needs. | Mother asserted recent improvements (housing, visitation) showed substantial compliance and capability to parent. | Held that substantial compliance alone does not bar permanent custody; trial court reasonably found compliance insufficient and that legally secure placement required permanent custody to FCCS. |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parents have a fundamental liberty interest in raising their children)
- Karches v. Cincinnati, 38 Ohio St.3d 12 (1988) (when evidence permits multiple constructions, appellate courts must adopt the one sustaining the trial court judgment)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (1990) (recognition of essential parental rights subject to child welfare)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (1979) (parental rights are not absolute and may be terminated when child's welfare requires it)