In re B.F.
2021 Ohio 4251
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- B.F. born October 2019; Agency took emergency custody after parents lived in a condemned home lacking utilities and with lead concerns. Emergency custody ordered Oct. 28–29, 2019.
- Juvenile court adjudicated B.F. dependent and continued him in Agency temporary custody (adjudication Nov. 25, 2019; disposition Dec. 19–20, 2019).
- B.F. was moved into a foster home with his half-brother at about two months old and remained in foster care throughout the case.
- Agency filed a motion for permanent custody Nov. 4, 2020 (later withdrawn) and refiled Feb. 25, 2021; permanent custody granted Apr. 29, 2021.
- Parents (Billie W. and Charles F.) appealed, challenging (1) the Agency’s reasonable efforts to prevent removal/reunify, (2) that permanent custody was against the manifest weight/best interest of the child, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Agency made reasonable efforts to prevent removal or to reunify | Parents: Agency could have used alternatives (hotel placement; kinship placement with Mary K. or relatives) and better case-plan assistance | Agency/trial court: conducted inspections, kinship investigations, referrals, supervised visits, and ongoing case management | Court: trial-court reasonable-efforts findings upheld; many early challenges barred by res judicata; later findings supported and not plainly erroneous |
| Whether award of permanent custody was against manifest weight / not in child's best interest | Parents: they substantially complied / remedied removal causes and could parent B.F. safely | Agency: child is bonded to foster family; parents failed to address mental health, housing stability, and employment; child needs legally secure placement | Court: clear-and-convincing evidence supports best-interest findings; permanent custody affirmed |
| Whether parents received ineffective assistance of counsel | Parents: counsel failed to file motions (dismiss original premature motion, seek kinship placement, expand visitation), subpoena evidence, or amend/contest case plan | State: counsel made reasonable tactical choices; many motions would not have changed outcome; parents cannot show prejudice | Court: no deficient performance or prejudice shown; IAC claims overruled |
| Procedural/timeliness defense (res judicata / plain error) | Parents: challenge early reasonable-efforts findings made at shelter/adjudication/disposition | Agency: parents did not appeal those final orders; issues could/should have been raised earlier | Court: early reasonable-efforts findings were appealable at the time and are now barred by res judicata; unpreserved later claims fail absent plain error |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (standard for "reasonable efforts" review and scope of R.C. 2151.419)
- In re H.F., 120 Ohio St.3d 499 (2008) (adjudication plus temporary custody constitutes a final, appealable order)
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (2008) (permanent-custody decision must be supported by clear and convincing evidence)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (manifest-weight standard and appellate deference to trial-court factfinding)
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (2004) (agency may not move for permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) until child in temporary custody 12 of 22 consecutive months)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (parental rights are a fundamental liberty interest)
- Suter v. Artist M., 503 U.S. 347 (1992) (the scope of federal statutory duties varies with circumstances)
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (1990) (review for sufficiency/competency of evidence for clear-and-convincing standard)