In re B.T.
2017 Ohio 7454
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- ACCSB intervened April 2014 for truancy, alleged abuse of child B.T. by mother’s then‑boyfriend, and family homelessness; temporary custody granted December 22, 2014.
- Children (B.T., D.T., C.T.) remained in the same foster home from December 2014 through the June 2016 final hearing; foster parents sought to adopt.
- ACCSB moved for permanent custody in July 2015, alleging children could not be returned to parents within a reasonable time; final hearing June 9, 2016.
- Caseworker testimony and guardian ad litem report: appellant Toland lacked stable, independent housing, failed to verify sufficient income, attended 22 of 35 visits, missed some required drug screens, and did not complete all recommended services.
- Trial court and magistrate found, under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) and (E)(4), Toland failed to remedy removal conditions and demonstrated lack of commitment; trial court awarded permanent custody to ACCSB.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (ACCSB) | Defendant's Argument (Toland) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether one or more R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)/ (E) factors are met so children cannot be placed with parent within a reasonable time | Toland failed to remedy conditions causing removal (insufficient/permanent housing), and showed lack of commitment (sporadic visitation, lack of support) | Toland contends she remedied primary removal reason (domestic violence), disputes insufficiency of her housing and argues case‑plan noncompliance unrelated to removal should not justify termination | Court found clear and convincing evidence under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) and (E)(4) that children cannot be placed with Toland in a reasonable time |
| Whether granting permanent custody is in children’s best interests under R.C. 2151.414(D) | Permanent custody is in best interests: children bonded with foster family, foster family seeks adoption, children thriving, need legally secure placement | Toland argues presumption favors reunification with natural parent and questions whether case‑plan failures were tied to removal reasons; contends shorter custodial history and lack of income shouldn’t control | Court held credible evidence supported best‑interest factors (relationships, custodial history, need for secure placement) and affirmed permanent custody |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (constitutional standard for termination of parental rights)
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (Ohio recognition of parental rights and limits)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (parental rights subordinated to child’s welfare)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (manifest‑weight standard for civil cases)
- In re Hoffman, 97 Ohio St.3d 92 (permanent custody proceedings described as akin to a death‑penalty equivalent)