2022 Ohio 2873
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- CCDCFS filed neglect/abuse complaints Dec. 2019; children Ai.M. (2006), An.M. (2010), S.A. (2013) were removed and adjudicated (Mar. 2020); temporary custody to CCDCFS. Father (A.M.) is biological parent of Ai.M. and An.M.; not biological parent of S.A.
- Agency moved for permanent custody May 3, 2021; hearing held Feb. 9, 2022 (Father absent); juvenile court granted permanent custody to CCDCFS (journal entries Mar. 4, 2022).
- Mother had unstable housing, mental‑health and substance‑abuse issues, poor engagement in services, and limited contact with the children.
- Father obtained housing and had positive early visits but tested positive for cocaine (Nov. 2020), failed to complete recommended treatment and random drug testing, then largely ceased contact with the children.
- Children were placed together in foster care, bonded to the foster mother, and expressed a desire to remain together and to maintain a relationship with Father if possible; the GAL nonetheless recommended permanent custody to CCDCFS.
- Father appealed the permanent‑custody order as to An.M.; court held Father lacked standing to challenge custody as to non‑biological child S.A.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | CCDCFS’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to appeal custody of S.A. | Father challenged permanent custody as to S.A. | Father is not S.A.’s biological or adoptive parent and suffered no adverse legal impact | Court: Father lacks standing to challenge S.A. custody; appeal limited to An.M. |
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported permanent custody | Father argued he had stable housing, completed assessment, positive visits, and children wanted to live with him | Agency pointed to 12+ months in temporary custody, parents’ failure to remedy removal causes, Father’s substance abuse and lack of sustained contact | Court: Sufficient competent, credible evidence supported permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) and (D)(2) |
| Whether GAL’s report that children wanted contact with Father required appointment of independent counsel (plain error) | Father argued children repeatedly expressed desire to maintain relationship with him, so independent counsel was required to protect their wishes | Agency and GAL relayed children’s wishes but recommended permanent custody because parents hadn’t remedied conditions; no conflict substantial enough to require counsel | Court: No plain error; GAL’s recommendation was consistent with children’s contingent wishes and appointment of independent counsel would not have changed outcome |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel for not requesting counsel for the children | Father said counsel performed unreasonably by not seeking independent counsel for children and that this likely changed result | Agency argued outcome would not differ because statutory two‑year custody factors and parents’ failures made permanent custody inevitable | Court: No prejudice shown; ineffective assistance claim fails under Strickland standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (termination of parental rights implicates fundamental liberty interest)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (1990) (Ohio recognition of parental liberty interest and burden of proof principles)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1958) (definition of "clear and convincing" evidence)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (2006) (court need not expressly discuss every R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) factor)
- In re Williams, 101 Ohio St.3d 398 (2004) (children are parties entitled to independent counsel in certain termination proceedings)
- In re A.M., 166 Ohio St.3d 127 (2020) (statutory interpretation regarding consideration of best‑interest factors)