2021 Ohio 2324
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Child B.R. (born ~2014) was removed after allegations of physical abuse and unsafe conditions while in nonrelative caregiver P.C.’s custody; FCCS obtained temporary custody in July 2017 and the court adjudicated the child abused in June 2018.
- FCCS filed for permanent custody in December 2018 after the child had been in agency custody for more than 12 of 22 months.
- At the January 2020 permanent-custody hearing Mother B.R. (mother) was represented but not present; counsel declined to contest the motion and a continuance request was denied.
- Evidence: FCCS caseworker testified mother completed parenting classes and some visits but lacked stable housing and employment, had lived with a registered sex offender, did not complete counseling, and had a child-endangerment conviction; paternity of the father was never established/unknown.
- Child had multiple placements but had lived for an extended period with foster mother M.H., who sought to adopt; the guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody for FCCS as being in the child’s best interest.
- Trial court granted FCCS’s motion (terminating parental rights and P.C.’s legal custody); appellate court affirmed, finding statutory trigger(s) and best-interest factors supported permanent custody by clear and convincing evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother B.R.) | Defendant's Argument (FCCS / Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory triggering events under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) support permanent custody | Mother conceded the 12-of-22-months factor but challenges the weight of evidence overall | FCCS argued (and court found) child had been in agency custody ≥12 months (B)(1)(d); father abandoned child (B)(1)(b) | Court: (B)(1)(d) satisfied; father legally abandoned; Mother conceded (d) and appellate court accepted findings |
| Whether granting permanent custody is in child’s best interest under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) (manifest-weight review) | Mother: she loves child, maintained visits and some case-plan compliance, bonded with the child; argued court’s best-interest conclusion was against manifest weight | FCCS/GAL: child has thrived in foster home, needs legally secure placement, mother lacks stable housing/employment, pled guilty to child endangerment, GAL recommended permanency/adoption | Court: Best-interest factors (interaction, child’s wishes, custodial history, need for legally secure placement, statutory E(7) factor based on child endangerment) supported permanent custody by clear and convincing evidence; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- No officially reported (bluebook) opinions are cited in the court of appeals decision (the opinion relies on appellate slip opinions and statutory provisions).