2024 Ohio 588
Ohio Ct. App.2024Background
- The case concerns the termination of parental rights of J.R. (Father) regarding his minor child, B.B.C., and the award of permanent custody to the Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services (CCDCFS).
- B.B.C. was removed from his parents' custody shortly after birth due to drug exposure and placed in the agency’s emergency custody.
- The mother tested positive for multiple illegal substances at birth; B.B.C. also had multiple drugs in his system and needed medication for withdrawal.
- Father was incarcerated at the time of B.B.C.’s birth and throughout the proceedings, with a release date not until 2026.
- CCDCFS developed case plans for the mother (with no meaningful participation), established paternity for the father, and explored but was unable to place B.B.C. with relatives.
- Both the guardian ad litem and the court found permanent custody to CCDCFS to be in the best interests of B.B.C., while father argued for reunification or an alternative disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody was against the manifest weight | Insufficient evidence for termination; placement | Evidence supports inability of parents to provide | Affirmed agency's custody; decision not against weight |
| of the evidence | with father within reasonable time | safe/stable home; father incarcerated until 2026 | of the evidence |
| Whether CCDCFS made reasonable reunification efforts | No adequate case plan/services for father; failure | Reasonable efforts made given facts; father’s | Agency not required to make unreasonable efforts with |
| under R.C. 2151.419 | to comply with statutory requirements | incarceration makes reunification unreasonable | incarcerated parent; reasonable-efforts requirement met |
| Whether court needed to make reasonable-efforts findings | Statute requires such findings even at permanent | R.C. 2151.419 does not apply to permanent custody | R.C. 2151.419 does not apply to permanent custody; |
| in permanent custody hearing | custody hearing stage | hearings; only for certain pre-permanency hearings | existing findings at earlier stages were sufficient |
| Whether granting permanent custody is in the child's best | Best interests of child served by future | B.B.C. bonded with caregiver, parents unable to | Permanent custody to CCDCFS is in best interest of child |
| interests under R.C. 2151.414(D) | reunification; father working on self in prison | provide permanency/security; adoption plan in place |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (Ohio 1990) (parental rights are fundamental but subject to child’s best interest)
- In re Z.C., 2023-Ohio-4703 (Ohio 2023) (standards for appellate review in permanent custody cases)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (Ohio 1979) (ultimate welfare of the child is the controlling principle)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (Ohio 2006) (each best-interest factor must be considered in permanent custody)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (reasonable-efforts finding not required at permanent custody hearing)