In re C.G.
2017 Ohio 896
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Child C.G. born April 2014; Jefferson County JFS obtained emergency temporary custody at hospital discharge based on parents’ extensive West Virginia child‑welfare history.
- West Virginia DHS records showed multiple substantiated physical and sexual abuse findings against father and substantiated failure‑to‑protect findings against mother; both parents had previously relinquished rights to other children.
- Agency developed reunification case plan (parent aide, parenting classes, counseling; sex‑offender treatment for father); parents completed most plan elements and attended regular supervised visits, with incremental increases over time.
- Agency received WVDPS documentation of prior substantiated sexual abuse in Oct 2015; father continued to deny allegations; treating evaluator (Dr. Kissinger) placed father at low‑to‑moderate risk to reoffend and recommended continued treatment.
- After C.G. was in agency custody for more than 12 of 22 months, agency moved for permanent custody; magistrate and juvenile court found statutory grounds met and that permanent custody to the agency was in the child’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Agency/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether agency made reasonable efforts to reunify | Mother: agency failed to increase visitation and thus thwarted reunification despite her compliance | Agency: provided case plan, services, supervised and later unsupervised visits, pursued West Virginia records, and adjusted plan after receiving records | Held: agency made reasonable efforts; assignment overruled |
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) (12 of 22 months) | Parents: they completed case plan; no current abuse, housing, or substance concerns; court erred as decision against manifest weight | Agency: child in custody >12 months; parents did not remedy conditions that caused removal (denial of abuse, mother’s failure to protect) | Held: statutory ground satisfied and permanent custody in child’s best interest; court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether substantial compliance with case plan requires return of child | Parents: completion of classes, counseling, treatment and regular visitation entitles them to reunification | Agency: substantial compliance alone is insufficient; must remedy removal conditions (here safety concerns remain) | Held: compliance alone insufficient; focus is whether conditions were remedied — they were not |
| Whether placement with paternal grandmother should have been ordered | Father: grandmother sought legal custody; argued court should have placed child with her | Agency/Court: grandmother’s separate petition was denied by magistrate and ruling was final (no appeal) | Held: argument forfeited by failure to appeal earlier custodial denial; court did not err |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.F., 862 N.E.2d 816 (Ohio 2007) (agency must prove reasonable reunification efforts at permanent‑custody hearing)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard explained)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 481 N.E.2d 613 (Ohio 1985) (clear and convincing evidence definition)
- In re Hayes, 679 N.E.2d 680 (Ohio 1997) (permanent termination of parental rights is a fundamental liberty interest)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (parental rights are fundamental civil rights)
- In re Gomer, 2004-Ohio-1723 (Ohio App.) (substantial compliance with a case plan, without more, does not entitle parent to custody)
- In re C.C., 932 N.E.2d 360 (Ohio App. 2010) (case plan is means to remediate removal causes, not an automatic entitlement)
- In re W.C.J., 2014-Ohio-5841 (Ohio App.) (courts need not gamble with child’s welfare by uprooting from stable foster placement)