2023 Ohio 434
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background:
- Children removed Oct 2018 after allegation that mother H.A. burned sibling M.M.; H.A. later pled guilty to misdemeanor child endangerment; FCCS obtained emergency and then temporary custody.
- FCCS filed case plans (June 2019) requiring parents to complete mental-health evaluations, parenting training, release authorizations, maintain stable housing/income, and attend medical appointments for children.
- FCCS moved for permanent custody Feb 28, 2020; multi-day hearing held Aug–Sept 2021 with testimony from FCCS caseworker (Blakley), guardian ad litem (Coe), and Somali-speaking clinician (Abdul).
- Testimony: parents completed some plan items but refused or failed to complete additional parenting classes and certain evaluations; children have multiple medical/behavioral needs and had been in foster care >12 months; bond evidence favored foster parents over appellants (except limited bond between father and one child).
- Juvenile court found FCCS made reasonable efforts, that R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) (12+ months in temporary custody) applied, and that granting permanent custody to FCCS was in the children’s best interest; parents appealed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FCCS made reasonable efforts to reunify | Appellants: FCCS failed to provide culturally/language-appropriate referrals or translated materials and thus did not make reasonable efforts | FCCS: earlier magistrate/trial-court findings (adjudication/disposition) already found reasonable efforts; agency used interpreters and attempted culturally specific referrals | Court: reasonable-efforts findings were made earlier and unchallenged; parents waived challenge; affirmed that reasonable efforts were made |
| Whether permanent custody was supported by the weight of the evidence (best-interest) | Appellants: they complied with much of the plan, made progress (per Abdul), and cultural/language factors impeded reunification; court failed to properly weigh these | FCCS: children remained in custody >12 months, parents did not complete key services, children bonded with foster families and have special needs needing stable placement | Court: competent, credible evidence supported best-interest findings (interaction, custodial history, needs, lack of parental capacity); grant of permanent custody not against manifest weight |
| Whether cultural and language issues required reversal/remand | Appellants: court failed to address parents’ Somali language/culture and FCCS’s duty to provide culturally appropriate services | FCCS: used interpreters at visits and communications; parents did not request translated documents; late engagement with Somali clinician limited utility | Court: acknowledged cultural issues but held court sufficiently considered factors overall; failure to expressly discuss culture did not compel reversal |
| Whether children could be reunified within a reasonable time (R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) vs (d)) | Father S.Y.: his case-plan progress showed children could be reunified within a reasonable time | FCCS: children had been in temporary custody for >12 of 22 months, so (d) applies and agency need not prove inability to reunify | Court: (d) applied—children in temporary custody >12 months—so reunification-timing argument unnecessary and rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parents have fundamental liberty interest in custody)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (defines clear-and-convincing standard)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (Ohio 1990) (parental custody is a substantial right; adjudication+temporary custody is appealable)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (R.C. 2151.419 reasonable-efforts findings are not required at permanent-custody hearing but agency must show efforts were made during proceedings)
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 2004) (when child has been in temporary custody 12+ months of a consecutive 22-month period, agency need not prove inability to reunify)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (Ohio 2006) (no single best-interest factor controls; court must consider statutory factors)
- In re Adams, 115 Ohio St.3d 86 (Ohio 2007) (orders continuing temporary custody are not always final, appealable orders for agencies; analysis of appealability)
- In re A.M., 166 Ohio St.3d 127 (Ohio 2020) (trial court must consider statutory best-interest factors but need not expressly discuss each fact it relied upon)