In re B.P.
2020 Ohio 3734
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background:
- In Jan 2017 LCJFS removed three siblings after non‑accidental injuries to A.P.; the children were placed together in foster care and LCJFS developed reunification case plans for Mother and Father.
- Case plans required mental‑health/substance assessments, random drug screens, stable housing/employment, parenting education, and protection from domestic violence; parents had intermittent compliance and mental‑health/substance issues.
- Children were returned to parents in July 2018 but were removed three weeks later after a domestic incident; thereafter children remained in the same foster home and received therapeutic services.
- LCJFS filed for permanent custody on December 27, 2018; hearings were held Nov–Dec 2019 and the magistrate granted permanent custody to LCJFS; the trial court overruled objections and adopted the magistrate’s decision on April 16, 2020.
- Child‑appellant B.P. (age six at decision) appealed only arguing placement with Mother was appropriate; the appellate court reviewed whether the trial court’s best‑interest finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody to LCJFS was against the manifest weight for best‑interest reasons | Mother substantially completed her case plan; she obtained housing and employment and thus reunification is appropriate | Despite completion, stability was only recently achieved after years; children have been in agency custody a long time and need a legally secure placement | Affirmed: court found competent, credible evidence supporting best‑interest finding for permanent custody to LCJFS |
| Whether completion of the case plan mandates reunification | Mother argues completion shows remedied the problems | Agency/court: completion is not dispositive; problems may persist despite plan compliance | Held: completion alone is not controlling; court may find issues not substantially remedied |
| Weight of custodial history/time in agency custody | Mother: lengthy custody should not outweigh recent progress | LCJFS: prolonged removal (29 months at hearing; 33 months removed total) and a failed prior reunification support permanent custody | Held: custodial history and prolonged instability supported denial of reunification |
| Child's expressed preference and bonding with Mother | B.P. (through counsel) wants to return to Mother | Court/LCJFS: child’s preference considered but outweighed by stability with foster family and siblings and parental instability | Held: child’s wishes considered but insufficient to overcome best‑interest concerns; placement with LCJFS affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (Ohio 1978) (judgment supported by some competent, credible evidence will not be reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence)