2016 Ohio 6981
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Children C.C. and I.C. were removed May 2013; Marion County Children Services Board (Agency) received temporary custody after a shelter-care hearing. Complaints alleging dependency/neglect were refiled March 12, 2014; children adjudicated dependent as to father Christopher Cooper in August 2014.
- The Agency prepared case plans and filed semiannual administrative reviews; Cooper was represented by counsel from August 2013 onward.
- Cooper spent substantial time incarcerated in Kentucky, had limited contact with the Agency, and did not participate consistently in case planning or visitation.
- The Agency attempted to identify kinship placements (including ICPC inquiries for Kentucky relatives and background checks of Cooper’s mother); those efforts produced no suitable placement.
- The Agency moved for permanent custody in April 2015; a permanent-custody hearing occurred December 21, 2015. The juvenile court granted the Agency permanent custody January 25, 2016. Cooper appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cooper) | Defendant's Argument (Agency) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the Agency violated R.C. 2151.412 / Ohio Adm.Code by not including Cooper in case plans | Agency excluded Cooper and thus failed to meet statutory/regulatory case-plan duties | Agency notified Cooper, attempted contact, and documented efforts; Cooper failed to engage | Court: Cooper waived objections by failing to timely object; on merits Agency satisfied statutory/regulatory obligations given Cooper’s limited participation and Agency’s outreach |
| 2. Whether R.C. 2151.413(D)(3)(b) barred the Agency from filing for permanent custody because Cooper was not provided case-plan services | Because Cooper was not extended a case plan, the Agency was precluded from filing permanent-custody motion | R.C. 2151.413(D)(3)(b) bars filing only if required reunification efforts were not provided; Agency did provide required services and efforts | Court: Rejected Cooper; Agency lawfully filed for permanent custody because it provided the services in the case plan and made reasonable efforts |
| 3. Whether Agency made "reasonable efforts" under R.C. 2151.419 to reunify the family | Agency failed to make reasonable efforts (no case-plan inclusion, little assistance) | Agency made reasonable, diligent efforts (letters, ICPC, kin searches, background checks); Cooper largely did not cooperate | Court: No abuse of discretion; evidence supports finding Agency made reasonable efforts |
| 4. Whether Agency violated R.C. 2151.412(H) by not exhausting family-placement options before foster care | Agency did not follow priorities to seek relative placement first | Agency explored kinship options (ICPC, background checks, homestudy where appropriate) but relatives were unsuitable or unavailable | Court: Agency complied with statutory priorities in practice; Cooper’s claim rejected |
| 5. Whether trial court erred in granting permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414 (including 12-of-22 months rule) | Time when Cooper was not on case plan should not count toward the 12-of-22 custody calculation; R.C. 2151.414(E)(4) improperly applied | Children had been in Agency custody since May 2013 and were in temporary custody 12+ months of a consecutive 22-month period; Agency met burden for R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) | Court: Affirmed permanent custody; clear-and-convincing evidence supports 12-of-22 finding and best-interest determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (reasonable-efforts review standard in dependency proceedings)
- In re Meyer, 98 Ohio App.3d 189 (1994) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (1985) (appellate review of sufficiency for clear-and-convincing burden)