2021 Ohio 4306
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background:
- A.T. (born Dec. 2018) was removed from mother (appellant) in Feb. 2019 when mother was 17; Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services (CCDCFS) obtained temporary custody and filed a case plan addressing parenting, domestic violence, anger management, substance abuse, and housing.
- Mother completed or engaged in most case-plan services: housing, anger-management, substance-abuse treatment (with negative screens), parenting programs (one completed, second in progress), and domestic-violence counseling (one completed, second ongoing at hearing).
- CCDCFS moved to modify temporary custody to permanent custody (filed Aug. 2020); the permanent-custody hearing occurred June 7, 2021; juvenile court granted permanent custody to CCDCFS on June 17, 2021, finding R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) (12 months in custody) and invoking best-interest findings under R.C. 2151.414(D) and (E).
- The juvenile court’s entry recited findings under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) and (4) (failure to remedy and lack of commitment) but did not specify which parent(s) those findings addressed or the specific conditions not remedied.
- On appeal the Eighth District reversed and remanded, holding the record did not contain clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody was in A.T.’s best interest or that R.C. 2151.414(E) applied as to mother, given her substantial compliance and progress.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court’s grant of permanent custody was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Mother: decision unsupported; she remedied conditions, engaged in services, had stable housing and sobriety | CCDCFS: ongoing parenting and domestic-violence concerns, inconsistent visitation, bonding problems justify permanent custody | Reversed — appellate court found juvenile court abused its discretion; record lacks clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody was in child’s best interest |
| Whether CCDCFS presented sufficient evidence under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) that mother failed to remedy conditions causing removal | Mother: she substantially remedied issues (completed programs, no recent substance positives, housing, counseling) | CCDCFS: mother did not benefit from services; remained involved with father; parenting concerns persisted | Reversed — court held record did not clearly and convincingly show E(1) applied to mother or she could not be reunified within a reasonable time |
| Whether the appeal could include custody orders for sibling J.H. | Mother (at argument): sought consolidation with J.H. appeal | CCDCFS: no timely notice of appeal filed for J.H.; jurisdictional defect | Appeal limited to A.T.; failure to include J.H. in notice of appeal deprived appellate jurisdiction to consider J.H. issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (constitutional protection of parental rights requires clear-and-convincing standard)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of "clear and convincing" evidence)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (court must consider statutory best-interest factors without giving any single factor controlling weight)
- In re Adoption of Ridenour, 61 Ohio St.3d 319 (trial court must base termination decisions on child’s best interest)
- In re H.F., 120 Ohio St.3d 499 (failure to file timely notice of appeal deprives appellate court of jurisdiction)
- In re M.S., 34 N.E.3d 420 (permanent custody is a remedy of last resort; parental progress and benefit from services are relevant)