In re C.B.C.
2016 Ohio 916
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- LCCS obtained emergency custody of 12-year-old C.B.C. in Nov 2014 after reports of neglect, truancy, and the mother’s drug use; the child had been staying with a friend.
- Father (J.D.C.) is serving a five-year sentence (stated term to expire Dec 10, 2017; eligible for early screening Dec 10, 2016); mother (M.D.) had long history with agency and was largely absent from proceedings and services.
- LCCS filed a reunification case plan for the mother; the mother failed to engage meaningfully, tested positive for marijuana and suboxone near the permanent-custody hearing, and had not visited the child after removal.
- Guardian ad litem moved for permanent custody; LCCS joined the motion. The child expressed desire to live with his father when released, and a friend’s mother (Tonya Moore) offered to care for him but did not file for custody.
- Trial court found (1) mother abandoned the child and failed to comply with case plan, (2) father’s incarceration (and history of repeated incarceration) made him unavailable within a reasonable time, and (3) awarding LCCS permanent custody was in the child’s best interest. Parents appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time / should not be placed with either | Mother argued there was insufficient evidence, emphasized placement with father could be appropriate | Father argued placement with him was feasible and earlier release was possible; also contested lack of case plan | Court: Clear and convincing evidence supports finding. Mother abandoned child (R.C. 2151.414(E)(10)/(4)); father was incarcerated long enough to be unavailable ≥18 months (R.C. 2151.414(E)(12)) and had repeated incarceration (E(13)) — each alone sufficed |
| Whether permanent custody is in child’s best interest | Mother argued severing bond with father is harmful; pointed to short time in agency custody | Father emphasized child’s bond with him, the child’s wishes, and relative placement possibilities (Moore) | Court: Best-interest factors (R.C. 2151.414(D)) favor permanent custody — child lacks stable custodial history, mother unfit, father unavailable; permanency via agency better than prolonged uncertainty |
| Whether LCCS used reasonable efforts to reunify | Mother argued she was denied adequate time and efforts before permanent-custody motion | Father argued he was not offered a case plan or included in planning while incarcerated | Court: LCCS used reasonable efforts as to mother; agency’s limited efforts re: father were reasonable and/or reunification would be futile while he remained imprisoned; any defect was harmless |
| Whether procedural defects (case plan, findings) require reversal | Mother/father challenged timing and case-plan process and lack of specific R.C. findings | Father claimed no case plan was offered/signed by him; both noted the court did not set out factor-by-factor findings | Court: Parties forfeited some objections by not requesting Civ.R.52 findings or raising them below; in absence of requested findings appellate court presumes trial court considered relevant factors and affirms if record supports judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (parents have fundamental liberty interest in custody)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (manifest-weight standard and deference to trial court credibility findings)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (reasonable-efforts requirement prior to terminating parental rights)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (statutory best-interest factors and weighing)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (parental rights not absolute; child welfare paramount)