In re C.L.
2017 Ohio 7184
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- C.L., born July 16, 2014, tested positive for marijuana at birth and was placed in JFS interim custody in September 2014; he remained in foster care thereafter.
- Parents have eight other children previously removed; three siblings were committed to JFS permanent custody (most recent 2012).
- Family history included domestic violence, substance abuse, unstable housing/income, mental-health concerns, and poor compliance with prior court-ordered services.
- JFS filed for permanent custody on May 27, 2016, after multiple extensions of temporary custody and limited, inconsistent parental visitation and engagement in services.
- The magistrate found R.C. 2151.414(D)(2) applicable and specifically relied on R.C. 2151.414(E)(11) (prior involuntary termination re: sibling + parents failed to show they can provide legally secure placement and adequate care). Trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision; mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | JFS/State Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court was required to perform the R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) best-interest factor balancing when R.C. 2151.414(D)(2) applies | Trial court erred by not doing a D(1)(a)-(e) best-interest analysis | If all D(2) elements are met, the statute mandates permanent custody and the D(1) balancing is not required | Court held D(2) governs; no separate D(1) weighing required when D(2) factors apply; affirmed |
| Whether competent, credible evidence supported finding that an E(11) factor existed (prior involuntary termination of sibling + parents failed to prove they can provide legally secure placement and adequate care) | Mother contended the court’s determination was not supported by the evidence | JFS pointed to prior terminations of siblings, inconsistent visitation, poor engagement in services, ongoing domestic-violence concerns, and lack of parental insight | Court held the record contained competent, credible evidence supporting the E(11) finding and permanent custody award |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Perales, 52 Ohio St.2d 89, 369 N.E.2d 1047 (Ohio 1977) (parents have a paramount but not absolute right to custody; child’s best interest controls)
- In re D.A., 113 Ohio St.3d 88, 862 N.E.2d 829 (Ohio 2007) (permanent custody must be supported by clear and convincing evidence; best interest of the child governs)