In re B.F., 2017 Ohio 609

In August 2013 Lucas County Children Services (LCCS) removed H.S. and N.S. after another child in the household, C.S., suffered severe head injuries; parents blamed each other.
Court placed the children in shelter care; appellant M.S. consented to dependency in January 2014 and an amended case plan aimed at reunification was adopted.
LCCS initially withheld case-plan services from M.S. pending a determination whether he was the perpetrator; services were later offered (mental health, substance-abuse treatment, psychological assessment, parenting, domestic-violence batterer’s program, anger management).
LCCS alleges M.S. largely refused or failed to complete recommended services (refused recommended treatment, missed/failed to complete programs, refused urine screen, failed to secure Medicaid for counseling, arrested during proceedings).
LCCS moved for permanent custody in April 2015, alleging children could not be returned within a reasonable time and noting they had been in agency custody for at least 12 of a consecutive 22 months.
The juvenile court granted permanent custody to LCCS; M.S. appealed arguing (1) improper withholding of services without due process and (2) that the court erred in finding LCCS made reasonable efforts to reunify.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether LCCS improperly withheld case-plan services from M.S. without notice/due process in violation of Fifth Amendment	M.S.: agency policy prevented services until he was ruled out as perpetrator; this deprived him of services and due process	LCCS: services were later offered (by Jan 2014) and M.S. refused or failed to complete them; initial withholding was safety-driven pending investigation	Court: No error — services were offered well before dispositional hearing and M.S. declined/failed to complete them
Whether the juvenile court erred in finding LCCS made reasonable efforts to reunify under R.C. 2151.419	M.S.: LCCS could not claim reasonable efforts because it refused services to him initially	LCCS: reasonable-efforts statute does not apply to permanent-custody hearings; moreover, services were provided later and M.S. did not cooperate	Court: R.C. 2151.419 does not apply to permanent-custody hearings; assignment without merit

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parents’ interest in custody is a fundamental liberty interest)
Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) (protection of family unit and parental rights)
In re Perales, 52 Ohio St.2d 89 (1977) (suitable parents have paramount right to custody)
In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (1996) (parental unfitness must be demonstrated under R.C. 2151.414)
In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (reasonable-efforts statute R.C. 2151.419 does not apply to permanent-custody hearings)
Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for manifest-weight review)
Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (deference to trial court on factual findings in manifest-weight review)
Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (1984) (presumption in favor of trial-court findings in weighing evidence)