2023 Ohio 1377
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background:
- CCDCFS removed six children from Mother in June–August 2021 after finding the home unsanitary and unsafe and after disclosures and evidence of long‑term physical and sexual abuse by N.P., a convicted Tier III sex offender.
- Mother completed some services (domestic violence, parenting) but repeatedly maintained a relationship with N.P., resisted responsibility for the conditions, and refused home inspections.
- Mother tested positive for cocaine on a hair test but did not complete an AOD assessment and minimized substance concerns.
- Two older children (including C.P.) disclosed sexual abuse and refused contact; younger children showed regressive behavior and asthma exacerbations after visits.
- CCDCFS moved to convert temporary custody to permanent custody in May 2022; after a November 2022 trial the juvenile court awarded permanent custody to CCDCFS.
- Mother appealed, arguing (1) the agency failed to make reasonable reunification efforts, (2) the permanent‑custody finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence, and (3) the court failed to address the children’s wishes/relationships.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2151.419 reasonable‑efforts findings were required before granting permanent custody | Mother: Agency/juvenile court violated state and federal due process by failing to show reasonable efforts to eliminate continued removal and reunify. | CCDCFS: R.C. 2151.419 does not apply to motions for permanent custody under R.C. 2151.413; reasonable‑efforts evidence was addressed in prior entries and need not be repeated. | Court: R.C. 2151.419 does not mandate findings at permanent‑custody hearings; the court previously found reasonable efforts and also made findings in final entries — no error. |
| Whether the juvenile court’s permanent‑custody decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Mother: She remedied grounds for removal (divorced N.P., completed services, regularly visited, secured housing/addressed dangers). | CCDCFS: Mother failed to benefit from services, stayed involved with N.P., refused home inspections, failed AOD follow‑up; children fearful/refused visits; statutory factors met. | Court: Sufficient competent, credible evidence (including failure to remedy conditions, children’s fear/refusal, >12 months in temporary custody) supports findings by clear and convincing evidence; not against manifest weight. |
| Whether the juvenile court erred by failing to discuss children’s wishes and relationships in its judgment entries | Mother: Court’s entries did not sufficiently discuss children’s wishes and parent relationships. | CCDCFS: Statute requires consideration, not explicit discussion of every factor; GAL and record show children’s wishes/relationships were considered. | Court: Consideration satisfied; entries and record reflect children’s wishes and interactions were considered—no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parental‑rights termination implicates fundamental liberty interest requiring strong procedural safeguards)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (R.C. 2151.419 does not apply to motions for permanent custody but agency must show reasonable efforts at appropriate stages)
- In re A.M., 166 Ohio St.3d 127 (Ohio 2020) (statute requires consideration, not explicit discussion, of each R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) factor)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (Ohio 2006) (no single best‑interest factor is dispositive in permanent‑custody decisions)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (defines "clear and convincing" evidence standard)