2025 Ohio 3019
Ohio Ct. App.2025Background
- The case involves Mother and Father (biological parents of Jane and Brian) separately appealing permanent custody orders granted to Clinton County Children Services (the "Agency").
- The juvenile court awarded the Agency permanent custody of Jane (minor) and Brian (who turned 18 during the proceedings).
- The appellate court found the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to grant permanent custody of Brian, as he was over 18; that order was vacated.
- The Agency's involvement began due to school truancy and continued after Mother's positive drug tests for methamphetamine and domestic violence allegations against Father.
- The Agency moved for permanent custody after multiple failed placements, issues with parental compliance with case plans (especially housing for Father and substance abuse/mental health for Mother), and issues regarding visitation.
- The trial court found statutory grounds for terminating parental rights but the appellate court reviewed whether the Agency made reasonable reunification efforts and if clear and convincing evidence supported the best-interest determination for custody of Jane.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to grant permanent custody of Brian (over 18) | Mother: Juvenile court lacked authority after age 18 | Agency: Sought continued custody until graduation | Juvenile court lacked jurisdiction; custody order for Brian vacated. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for permanent custody of Jane | Parents: Insufficient evidence, Agency did not prove best interest | Agency: Statutory grounds and best interest met | Agency failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence; order reversed/remanded. |
| Reasonableness of reunification efforts | Parents: Agency failed to provide meaningful assistance | Agency: Provided case plan, some assistance | Agency's efforts for Father and Mother were insufficient; undermined reunification. |
| Termination of visitation rights for Mother | Mother: Termination was unjustified and hindered reunification | Agency: Based on reported threat and lack of compliance | Termination was severe and unsupported; Agency did not make reasonable efforts. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re H.G., 2015-Ohio-1764 (constitutional right to parent and state’s clear and convincing burden in permanent custody)
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (supreme court articulation of parental rights as fundamental)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (constitutional protection of parental rights)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179 (manifest weight of evidence standard)
- In re M.A., 2019-Ohio-5367 (presumption in favor of fact finder’s decision)
- In re Williams, 1996-Ohio-182 (liberal construction of custody statutes to maintain family unity)
- In re D.M., 2020-Ohio-3273 (termination of parental rights as last resort)
- In re Fry, 2002-Ohio-3935 (must show more than poor parenting for termination)
- In re A.L., 2024-Ohio-1992 (permanency and stability as purpose of permanent custody statutes)