In re B.L.
105 N.E.3d 379
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- JFS removed two infants (B.L.1 and B.L.2) in July 2014 due to unsafe/unsanitary home conditions, parental drug use, and prior agency involvement; children were placed in foster care and briefly with a maternal aunt.
- Case plan required parents to remain sober, submit to drug screens, obtain stable housing, and complete parenting programs; parents initially complied but relapsed in mid-2016 and largely ceased participation.
- Father had intermittent incarceration (July 2014–Jan 2015; again Feb–Apr 2017) and periods of sobriety and employment, but lacked stable housing at the permanent-custody hearing and admitted recent substance use.
- JFS moved for permanent custody after finding parents were not participating in services; Father sought to challenge a denied Texas ICPC home study for the maternal grandmother and asked to present evidence supporting placement with her.
- The juvenile magistrate found children had been in agency custody 12+ of 22 months and that permanent custody to JFS was in the children’s best interest; the trial court overruled Father’s objections and the appeals court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | JFS / Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ohio court must permit challenge to a denied out‑of‑state (Texas) ICPC home study or admit evidence on relative placement | Father: ICPC denial in Texas denied due process; court should hear evidence and consider grandmother placement | Court: ICPC grants review only in receiving state; grandmother never filed for legal custody nor submitted required statement of understanding under R.C. 2151.353(A)(3), so juvenile court could not award her custody | Court refused to hear evidence; due‑process claim failed because grandmother was not a proper legal‑custody movant |
| Whether permanent custody to JFS was supported by clear and convincing evidence / against manifest weight | Father: He visited, was reengaged in treatment, employed, and could be ready within months | JFS: Children in custody 12+ months; parents relapsed, ceased services, lacked stability; children thriving in foster home needing permanency | Court held evidence supported permanent custody; not against manifest weight |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (recognition of parental liberty interest in custody)
- Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (parental rights as fundamental liberty)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (standard for terminating parental rights: clear and convincing evidence)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (standard for manifest‑weight review)
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (limits on parental rights and state authority to remove children)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (state power to terminate parental rights is circumscribed but permissible for child welfare)