2024 Ohio 2282
Ohio Ct. App.2024Background
- The case concerns the termination of appellant-mother D.S.'s parental rights to two minor children, Bn.J. and Br.J., and the award of permanent custody to Lucas County Children Services (LCCS).
- D.S. had a prior history with LCCS, losing permanent custody of another child in April 2022 due to issues like substance abuse, mental health, domestic violence, and unstable housing, and had lost legal custody of a second older half-sibling.
- Both children were removed from D.S.'s care shortly after birth due to her repeated positive tests for marijuana/THC, lack of engagement in required treatment, and ongoing instability.
- D.S. failed to complete significant portions of her court-ordered case plan, including mental health, domestic violence counseling, and substance use treatment, and remained unemployed and dependent on relatives for housing.
- Bn.J. and Br.J. were doing well, thriving, and bonded with their foster family, who expressed willingness to adopt them; no appropriate relatives were available for alternative placement.
- The juvenile court granted permanent custody to LCCS and D.S. appealed, contesting both the dependency/adjudication of Br.J. and the grounds for permanent custody of both children.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Br.J. properly adjudicated dependent & neglected? | D.S.: LCCS did not show Br.J. was dependent or neglected, as he did not test positive or suffer withdrawal. | LCCS: Statutes do not require physical harm; D.S.’s habitual substance abuse and lack of care met statutory criteria. | Adjudication was supported by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Was the evidence sufficient to find both children could not be placed with D.S. in a reasonable time? | D.S.: She was making significant progress and could complete services if given more time. | LCCS: D.S. failed to complete most of her court-ordered services and issues persisted from prior cases. | Evidence sufficed; court not required to extend more time. |
| Did D.S.'s efforts amount to "significant progress" under R.C. 2151.414? | D.S.: Completed anger management and parenting counseling; close to finishing other services. | LCCS: Main services (substance abuse, mental health, domestic violence, housing) unfinished; positive drug/alcohol tests continued. | No significant progress; most requirements unmet. |
| Should permanent custody be awarded to LCCS as in the children's best interests? | D.S.: Children's bond with her and her ongoing efforts warranted reunification. | LCCS: Foster placement provided stability, safety, and adoption prospects; children’s interests best served by permanent custody. | Best interests served by granting permanent custody to LCCS. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (explains clear and convincing evidence standard for civil cases)
- In re T.P., 2023-Ohio-3662 (6th Dist.) (role of juvenile court and burden for dependency/neglect adjudications)
- In re D.M., 2004-Ohio-3982 (6th Dist.) (standard for reviewing manifest weight in permanent custody cases)
- In re B.C., 2014-Ohio-4558 (6th Dist.) (parental interest is subordinate to best interest of the child in custody termination matters)