In re C.M.
2017 Ohio 5854
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Children C.M. (b. 2010) and T.M. (b. 2011) were removed May 9, 2015 after being found unattended in soiled diapers; WCCS filed neglect/dependency complaint and obtained temporary custody.
- Mother’s whereabouts were initially unknown; case plan later required substance‑abuse and mental‑health treatment, random drug screens, stable housing/income, parenting classes, and regular contact with WCCS. Mother failed to complete any case‑plan services.
- Mother entered and left an in‑patient treatment program in late 2015, received Vivitrol but relapsed, had multiple jail stints in 2016, and had periods of almost year‑long no contact with the children and WCCS.
- Children lived with foster family who sought adoption; children exhibited counseling needs and were strongly bonded to foster family; CASA and caseworker recommended permanent custody to WCCS.
- WCCS moved for permanent custody Sept. 14, 2016; juvenile court granted permanent custody and denied Mother’s request for a six‑month extension on Dec. 13, 2016. Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (WCCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether grant of permanent custody was supported by clear and convincing evidence that children could not or should not be placed with Mother within a reasonable time | Mother urged a six‑month extension to demonstrate commitment and remedy conditions | WCCS argued Mother failed to remedy removal conditions, repeatedly relapsed, did not complete case plan, had extended no‑contact, and adoption was necessary for permanency | Court held WCCS met burden; Mother failed to remedy conditions and permanency via adoption was in children’s best interest |
| Whether best‑interest factors favored permanent custody to WCCS | Mother argued recent pretrial efforts (treatment, housing, job) showed progress | WCCS argued last‑minute claims lacked documentation and contrasted with long history of noncompliance and instability | Court found best‑interest factors supported permanent custody (bond with foster family, custodial history, need for stable placement) |
| Whether abandonment/placement within reasonable time finding was erroneous | Mother disputed characterization of efforts as ‘‘too little, too late’’ | WCCS pointed to abandonment and long noncontact, making reunification unreasonable | Court affirmed finding of abandonment and that children could not be placed with Mother within a reasonable time |
| Whether juvenile court abused discretion by denying six‑month extension | Mother contended extension would permit rehabilitation and reunification | WCCS contended extension would harm children’s need for timely permanency given Mother’s prolonged noncompliance | Court denied extension, emphasizing children’s need for finality and Mother’s minimal progress over two years |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) (recognizing parents’ fundamental interest in raising their children)
- Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) (due‑process protection for parental rights)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (state must prove termination grounds by clear and convincing evidence)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (2008) (parental rights are not absolute; state may remove children to protect welfare)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (1979) (limits on state authority to terminate parental rights)