2020 Ohio 2852
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Child B.N.R., born Nov. 2013, suffered multiple serious medical conditions (including Short Gut Syndrome and visual impairment) requiring G-tube feedings and ongoing multidisciplinary care.
- MCCS removed B.N.R. from Mother’s care in Jan. 2017 after repeated hospitalizations for failure to thrive and placed the child with foster parents (one a registered nurse) on Jan. 12, 2017.
- A case plan required Mother to address mental health/substance issues, maintain safe housing, attend visitation and medical appointments, submit releases, and allow home visits; Mother completed some services but had episodes of anger and inconsistent participation early in the case.
- Temporary custody to MCCS was extended twice; by the time MCCS moved for permanent custody (Dec. 2018), B.N.R. had been in MCCS custody for at least 12 of the prior 22 months.
- April 16, 2019 hearing: foster parents, MCCS caseworkers, GAL, and Mother testified; GAL recommended permanent custody to MCCS; foster parents had facilitated B.N.R.’s medical/therapeutic progress and expressed intent to adopt.
- Trial court (adopting magistrate) and this court affirmed grant of permanent custody to MCCS, finding it was in the child’s best interest and noting Mother had not demonstrated ability to sustain care for B.N.R.’s special medical needs.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | MCCS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody to MCCS was in the child’s best interest under R.C. 2151.414(D) | Mother: She substantially completed her case plan, visits are consistent, bonded with child, can provide care with services | MCCS: Child has special medical needs; foster parents meet those needs; child has been in care long enough and needs permanency | Court: Affirmed permanent custody to MCCS as in child’s best interest (clear and convincing evidence) |
| Whether statutory basis for permanent custody (12 of 22 months in temporary custody) applied | Mother: did not dispute custody-duration finding but argued best-interest error | MCCS: R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) applies because child was in agency custody 12+ months of 22-month period | Court: Found R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) satisfied; focused on best-interest analysis and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (recognizing parental custody as a fundamental liberty interest)
- In re Perales, 52 Ohio St.2d 89 (1977) (parental right to custody is paramount absent forfeiture)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (1979) (parental rights are subject to the child’s welfare as the controlling principle)
- In re Rose, 85 N.E.3d 498 (2d Dist. 2017) (explaining the meaning/degree of clear and convincing evidence in custody contexts)
- In re Estate of Haynes, 25 Ohio St.3d 101 (defining the clear-and-convincing standard)
- In re C.F., 862 N.E.2d 816 (Ohio 2007) (court may rely on GAL’s report to determine child’s wishes)