In re BR
2019 Ohio 2178
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Mother S.H. and father C.R. have five children; the two youngest (J.R., born 2015, and B.R., born 2017) tested positive for illicit drugs at birth and have been in Franklin County Children Services (FCCS) custody since hospital release.
- FCCS filed dependency/abuse complaints and obtained temporary custody; FCCS later moved for permanent custody of J.R. (filed Aug. 2017) and B.R. (filed Jan. 2018).
- Case plans required AOD assessment/treatment, ACS drug screens (missed screens counted as positive), parent mentoring, and regular supervised visitation.
- S.H. admitted pregnancy drug use, was incarcerated Apr–Nov 2017, completed some in‑custody programming, completed only one ACS screen (positive), missed ~60 ACS screens, and attended sporadic visits (24 of 68). She claims sobriety via probation screens but produced no documentary proof.
- The trial court found S.H. failed to substantially remedy the conditions prompting custody (drug use, failure to complete plan, inconsistent visitation); C.R. failed to complete any plan tasks and was found to have abandoned the children. The court granted FCCS permanent custody; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (S.H.) | Defendant's Argument (FCCS / Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody was improperly granted | S.H. contends she completed required services (AOD assessment/treatment, parenting class), has negative probation drug screens, can meet children’s needs, and visitation gaps should not defeat reunification | FCCS/trial court contend S.H. failed to complete an AOD assessment, completed only one ACS screen (positive), missed required ACS screens, failed parenting/visitation requirements, and did not show she remedied conditions that caused removal | Affirmed: trial court’s permanent‑custody decision is supported by competent, credible evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (recognizes parents’ fundamental liberty interest in childrearing)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (Ohio precedent on parental rights and juvenile matters)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (discusses permanent custody standards and agency obligations)
- Karches v. Cincinnati, 38 Ohio St.3d 12 (appellate standard to construe evidence in favor of verdict)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Brofford, 83 Ohio App.3d 869 (supporting principle that permanent custody orders will be upheld when supported by competent, credible evidence)