2023 Ohio 4494
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Appellant mother appealed the trial court's grant of permanent custody of her children, A.Y.C. and E.Y.C., to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services (HCJFS).
- HCJFS became involved immediately after the birth of both children due to concerns about domestic violence, mental health issues, drug activity, and unsafe living conditions.
- Both children have significant, ongoing medical needs requiring specialized care; mother struggled to attend medical appointments and to manage care independently.
- Mother participated in some case plan services, but did not make sufficient progress, especially regarding stable housing, parenting capacity, and independent child care.
- The father failed to participate in reunification services, has a history of substance abuse and abandonment, and did not visit the children.
- The trial court found it was not in the best interest of the children to be returned to either parent and granted HCJFS permanent custody; mother appealed claiming the decision was against the weight and sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in granting | Mother argued evidence did not support | HCJFS argued evidence showed mother could not safely care for | The court found the evidence supported |
| permanent custody to HCJFS | permanent custody; she had engaged in | children's needs and that permanent custody was in their best | the trial court’s finding and affirmed the |
| services and made progress. | interests. | grant of permanent custody. | |
| Whether the evidence was sufficient to support | Mother contended she substantially remedied | HCJFS contended mother did not make necessary behavioral | Sufficient evidence supported the trial |
| that the children could not/should not be placed | the conditions and could safely parent. | changes and could not independently meet the children’s needs. | court’s determination. |
| with her within a reasonable time | |||
| Whether permanent custody was in the children's | Mother maintained her bond with children | HCJFS argued children were bonded to their foster home, had | The court found permanent custody with |
| best interest | and had some success in services. | special needs unmet by mother, and foster family wished to | HCJFS was in the children’s best interest. |
| adopt. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re B.J., 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-200372 and C-200376, 2021-Ohio-373 (explains the clear and convincing evidence standard for permanent custody)
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538, 2008-Ohio-4825, 895 N.E.2d 809 (defines 'clear and convincing evidence' in child custody cases)
- In re L Children, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-220601, 2023-Ohio-1346 (affirms deference to the trial court’s factual findings in custody cases)