In re AsF(F)
2016 Ohio 7836
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Newborn As.F. tested positive for opiates at birth (Jan 30, 2014); a voluntary case plan began Jan 31, 2014 and temporary custody followed after emergency removal in Sept. 2014.
- Parents had case plans (stable housing, employment, mental-health and substance-abuse treatment, random drug screens, weekly visitation); both repeatedly failed to complete required services.
- During the temporary-custody period, parents continued drug use (positive screens), had sporadic incarceration and irregular employment, and missed the large majority of visitation (Mother 6/58; Father 12/79).
- MCDJFS moved for permanent custody on Dec. 1, 2015 after As.F. had been in agency custody 12+ months of a consecutive 22‑month period. The GAL recommended permanent custody.
- Juvenile court found MCDJFS proved the statutory factors by clear and convincing evidence and granted permanent custody to MCDJFS; Mother appealed only one assignment of error challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the statutory timeframe for addicted parents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the grant of permanent custody was supported by clear and convincing evidence | Mother: evidence did not meet clear-and-convincing standard | MCDJFS: record shows parents repeatedly failed to remediate conditions, so evidence is clear and convincing | Affirmed — sufficient credible evidence supported permanent custody |
| Whether the statutory 12-of-22-months rule is effectively impossible for heroin-addicted parents to meet | Mother: heroin addiction requires more time; 12/22 likely insufficient | MCDJFS: timeframe is only one statutory element; parents had additional time and failed to use it | Court declined to rule abstractly; held timeframe not dispositive here because parents had almost two years and failed to progress |
| Whether the juvenile court improperly based the decision on parents’ status as addicts | Mother: court punished parental status (addict) rather than remediation | MCDJFS: court relied on objective statutory best‑interest factors, including ongoing drug use and noncompliance | Held — court did not base decision solely on status; it relied on multiple statutory factors and evidence of ongoing drug use and noncompliance |
| Whether permanent custody served the child’s best interests (R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) factors) | Mother: recent efforts and claimed program participation suggest potential reunification | MCDJFS: best-interest factors (attachment, custodial history, need for permanence, lack of remediation) favor permanent custody | Held — best-interest factors weigh in favor of permanent custody (need for legally secure placement; lack of parental progress) |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (recognition of parental liberty interest)
- Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (parental rights as fundamental liberty)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (clear-and-convincing standard required for termination)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of clear-and-convincing evidence)
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (limitations on state authority and proper bases for termination)
- In re Baby Boy Blackshear, 90 Ohio St.3d 197 (newborn positive toxicology constitutes per se abuse)
- In re D.A., 113 Ohio St.3d 88 (reversal where court relied solely on parental status rather than progress)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (scope of state's power to terminate parental rights)