2018 Ohio 616
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Mother (Opal Stevens) and Father had custody issues for children I.S. (2010) and B.S. (2012); Agency removed the children after reports of threats, physical discipline, and domestic violence and filed a neglect/abuse complaint in December 2014.
- Children placed in Agency temporary custody from December 2014 and remained in foster care for ~30 months; siblings were placed together with a foster family willing to adopt.
- Case plan required Mother to complete parenting classes, psychological evaluation, domestic violence assessment, and counseling; Mother completed services but a psychological evaluation indicated borderline intellectual functioning and risk for neglect/abuse, with poor prognosis for change.
- Visitation recordings and testimony showed limited maternal engagement, inconsistent/negative interaction, and visits that worsened over time; one recorded visit was terminated as chaotic.
- Agency moved for permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) (child in temporary custody 12+ months of a 22-month period); trial court granted permanent custody to the Agency on Sept. 22, 2017; Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Agency) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of visitation videotape (Evid.R. 403/901) | Video is relevant, authenticated by visitation coordinator, and probative of Mother–child interaction; limited showing for economy. | Tape is non-representative cherry-picked evidence; unfairly prejudicial and not properly authenticated. | Trial court did not abuse discretion: tape relevant, authentication sufficient, no undue unfair prejudice; admission affirmed. |
| Permanent custody — manifest weight/sufficiency and best interests (R.C. 2151.414) | Permanent custody appropriate: children in Agency custody >12 months of 22-month period; children bonded to foster family; parents failed to remediate risks; need for legally secure placement. | Mother contends compliance with case plan and challenges weight/sufficiency of evidence and court’s consideration of statutory factors. | Court found clear and convincing evidence for permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d); best-interest factors favored permanency; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Allen, 73 Ohio St.3d 626 (Ohio 1995) (trial court's Evid.R. 403 discretion reviewed for abuse).
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard defined).
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1959) (clear-and-convincing evidence defined).
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (Ohio 1978) (appellate review requires some competent, credible evidence).
- Seasons Coal v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (credibility and weight issues are for trial court).
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (Ohio 1997) (deference to trial court on credibility in custody-related findings).
- Pickens v. State, 141 Ohio St.3d 462 (Ohio 2014) (authentication objections).
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (Ohio 1990) (parental rights are fundamental).