2020 Ohio 5437
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- C.K. (born ~2013) was found dependent after MCCS removed her from the parents' home in December 2017 and placed her with a relative; a case plan was adopted to address parental substance abuse, mental health, housing, and income issues.
- MCCS moved for permanent custody on December 20, 2019; the permanent-custody hearing occurred March 24, 2020 and the court issued its order March 31, 2020.
- Father (Corey King) had chronic substance-abuse problems (marijuana and cocaine), missed the majority of 182 drug screens (127 unexcused misses deemed presumptively positive), and had at least one positive test for cocaine in December 2019.
- King had periods of incarceration (including Sept–Nov 2019), irregular visitation/support, no documented stable employment, and limited engagement with case-plan services; he completed some counseling late in the case but did not disclose cocaine use to a counselor.
- The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that King had not remedied the conditions causing removal, could not provide an adequate permanent home within a reasonable time, and that permanent custody to MCCS was in C.K.’s best interest; parental rights were terminated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (King) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether granting permanent custody was against the manifest weight / not supported by clear-and-convincing evidence | MCCS: record shows chronic, unremedied substance abuse, missed drug tests, incarceration, lack of stable housing/income, minimal parent–child contact — clear-and-convincing proof that child cannot be placed with father within a reasonable time and custody is in child’s best interest | King: had been making case-plan progress and the court improperly relied on a single failed drug test and on his past failures to visit | Court: Affirmed. Record contains competent, credible, clear-and-convincing evidence supporting at least one statutory ground (R.C. 2151.414) and that permanent custody served child’s best interest. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a continuance and denying extension of temporary custody (including during early COVID period) | MCCS/State: extension/continuance not in child’s best interest; no significant case-plan progress that would justify delay; children had been in temporary placement ~2 years | King: sought more time to continue case-plan work and argued for delay/extension to complete requirements (moved to extend temporary custody / implied continuance) | Court: No abuse of discretion. Given the lack of significant progress, unresolved substance issues, incarceration history, and the child’s need for permanency, denial of extension/continuance was proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (Ohio 1978) (appellate review requires competent, credible evidence for factual findings)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (clarified civil manifest-weight and clear-and-convincing review standards)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear-and-convincing evidence)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (Ohio 1985) (clear-and-convincing standard in parental rights context)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983) (discussion of manifest-weight review)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (appellate review standards for manifest weight)
- Hartt v. Munobe, 67 Ohio St.3d 3 (Ohio 1993) (trial-court discretion in granting continuances)
- Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1964) (continuance standard and abuse-of-discretion review)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (definition and limits of abuse of discretion)