In re B.T.H.
100 N.E.3d 40
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- JFS filed abuse/neglect/dependency complaints in July 2014 after allegations Mother lived with 10‑year‑old B.T.H. in unsanitary motel housing, had mental‑health issues, medication misuse, and asked the child to engage in sex with another youth. An ex parte order placed the child with an aunt.
- Court adjudicated B.T.H. abused and dependent in Sept. 2014 and found Mother the perpetrator. Father was largely absent and defaulted initially. Aunt relinquished temporary custody in May 2015; JFS placed the child in foster care.
- Case plan required psychological evaluation, mental‑health treatment, medication compliance, stable housing and income; Mother had supervised weekly visits throughout the case.
- Evidence at the permanent‑custody hearing showed long‑standing mental‑health concerns, inconsistent/missing prescription pills, unsanitary living conditions at an earlier apartment, and inappropriate/supervised visit behavior; Mother later obtained a cleaner apartment and some ongoing mental‑health services.
- JFS moved for permanent custody (filed July 2016); the child had been in agency temporary custody for more than 12 of 22 consecutive months. The magistrate recommended, and the juvenile court adopted, granting permanent custody to JFS. Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (JFS/State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother has standing to appeal denial of child's motion for liberalized parenting time | Mother appealed denial though she did not join the child’s motion; argues the court abused discretion by denying continuance/liberalized time | State argued Mother lacked standing to raise child’s motion and court properly denied liberalized time given unresolved mental‑health risks and statutory time limits | Court: Mother lacks standing to appeal that denial; in any event denial was not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether denial of continuance (delay of permanent‑custody decision) violated rights / abused discretion | Mother claims child needed time to try living with Mother; postponement would benefit child’s wishes | State argued delay would exceed statutory 200‑day limit and hinder child’s need for prompt permanency | Court: Denial proper; delay would have breached R.C. timing and harmed child’s interest in expeditious permanency |
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported granting permanent custody to JFS (best‑interest test) | Mother contends she made progress, has bond with child, complied with counseling, and issues (medication, housing) do not outweigh reunification interests | JFS pointed to prolonged agency involvement, unresolved mental‑health and medication concerns, supervised visits only, lack of relatives willing to assume custody, and child’s need for legally secure placement | Court: Held record contained sufficient credible evidence that permanent custody to JFS was in child’s best interest; overruled Mother’s challenge |
| Whether any less‑restrictive dispositional alternative was legally or practically viable | Mother argued for alternatives to termination given recent housing improvement and bond | JFS argued statutory alternatives (extended temporary custody, planned permanent living arrangement, legal custody to relative) were unavailable or impractical | Court: Found no viable legal alternative; other dispositional options were not available under statutory criteria |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (state must prove termination standards by clear and convincing evidence)
- Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (U.S. 1972) (standing requires a personal stake in the outcome)
- Ohio Pyro, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, 115 Ohio St.3d 375 (Ohio 2007) (definition and requirement of standing)
- Moore v. City of Middletown, 133 Ohio St.3d 55 (Ohio 2012) (standing is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- State ex rel. Dallman v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 35 Ohio St.2d 176 (Ohio 1973) (standing requires an adversarial, justiciable controversy)
- Midwest Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. Deerfield Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 91 Ohio St.3d 174 (Ohio 2001) (only aggrieved parties may appeal)
- Williams v. McFarland Properties, L.L.C., 177 Ohio App.3d 490 (Ohio Ct. App.) (appellant bears burden to establish standing on appeal)