2012 Ohio 1913
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- SCJFS filed for temporary custody of minor B.J. in 2010; B.J. found dependent and placed in SCJFS custody.
- R.K. failed to serve or appear initially; paternity later established in 2011 after multiple testing delays and transportation issues.
- R.K. had limited contact with B.J. and did not visit or support the child from 2010–2011 until after paternity was established.
- SCJFS sought permanent custody; guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody to SCJFS.
- Trial court found abandonment by R.K. under RC 2151.011(C) and, after considering best interests under RC 2151.414, granted permanent custody to SCJFS.
- Appeal by father challenged abandonment finding and the denial of a six-month extension; the court affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court correctly found abandonment by clear and convincing evidence. | R.K. argues failure to contact was not abandonment due to lack of opportunities. | SCJFS argues R.K. failed to maintain contact for over 90 days and cannot rebut the presumption of abandonment. | Abandonment upheld; presumption rebuttable but not overcome by record here. |
| Whether permanent custody to SCJFS was in B.J.'s best interests. | SCJFS contends best interests supported by stable foster placement and bond with foster family. | R.K. argues there are feasible paths to reunification given his contact and visits. | Best interest shown; permanent custody to SCJFS affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adkins (5th Dist.), 2006-Ohio-431 (5th Dist. 2006) (standard of review and abandonment considerations in custody matters)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (defining clear and convincing evidence and appellate review standard)
- In re Cornell, 2003-Ohio-5007 (11th Dist. 2003) (presumption of abandonment under RC 2151.011(C) and evidence to rebut)
- In re C.E., 2005-Ohio-5913 (2nd Dist. 2005) (rebutting the abandonment presumption; credibility and involvement considerations)
- In re Awkal, 95 Ohio App.3d 309 (5th Dist. 1994) (best interests framework and appellate deference to juvenile court)