In re C.K.
2016 Ohio 8002
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Mother (T.K.) and father (M.S.) are biological parents of C.K. (b. 2008) and C.S. (b. 2010); both parents had prior child‑welfare involvement in Summit and Lucas Counties.
- In August 2013 LCCS obtained emergency custody after C.S. was hospitalized with serious head injuries (skull fracture, brain bleeds); children placed in foster care and later adjudicated dependent (C.S. also found abused).
- LCCS implemented reunification case plans in January 2014 for both parents; services included domestic violence treatment, mental‑health counseling, parenting, and evaluations.
- Father was resistant to services, showed aggressive/intimidating behavior toward agency staff, and was later indicted and convicted (plea) for endangering children and making terroristic threats; he was incarcerated during the custody trial.
- Mother had long‑standing mental‑health issues, missed many counseling sessions and nearly half of offered visitations despite agency assistance; she failed to complete domestic‑violence programming.
- After multiple hearings, the juvenile court granted permanent custody to LCCS on April 5, 2016; both parents appealed and the Sixth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LCCS made reasonable efforts to reunify | Argued agency failed to provide/assign case‑plan services and thus did not make reasonable efforts (R.C. 2151.412/2151.212) | Argued trial court failed to determine whether efforts were reasonable and LCCS did not make reasonable efforts | Court held reasonable‑efforts requirement for temporary hearings does not apply to permanent‑custody motion; agency made reasonable efforts and implemented case plans in Jan 2014, so arguments fail. |
| Whether a relative (father’s sister) could/should receive custody | Sister willing and had filed for third‑party custody; father argued trial court erred in rejecting relative placement | (Agency) argued relative unsuitable based on criminal history, dishonesty, jailhouse recordings, domestic‑violence history | Court affirmed agency investigation and finding relative unsuitable; no error. |
| Whether filing for permanent custody before 12 of prior 22 months in agency custody barred granting permanent custody | Father argued LCCS filed prematurely (children had not been in custody 12 of last 22 months), interrupting parents’ ability to complete services | (Agency) relied on R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) and court’s ability to find statutory factors under R.C. 2151.414(E) that justify filing | Court held filing was permissible because trial court considered and found statutory (E) factors (parents’ failure to remedy conditions; parental mental illness; lack of commitment; father’s incarceration). |
| Whether permanent‑custody decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence | Father argued against termination generally | Mother argued court’s termination of parental rights lacked clear and convincing evidence | Court held trial court’s findings under R.C. 2151.414(E) and best‑interest factors were supported by clear and convincing evidence; termination affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (defendant may enter a guilty plea while maintaining innocence under certain circumstances)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (reasonable‑efforts statutory requirement does not apply to permanent custody motions)
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (1996) (permanent custody requires clear and convincing evidence and consideration of statutory best‑interest factors)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1958) (defines clear and convincing evidence standard)