2022 Ohio 3320
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Child born Nov. 2015; parents split in 2016 when Mother moved to Ohio and Father stayed in Michigan and ceased supporting or seeing Child.
- Multiple child-removal episodes (2018, 2019, 2020) for unsafe/deplorable home conditions; Child repeatedly placed with the same foster family.
- Mother completed case plan once, later reoffended and ultimately executed a permanent surrender (Apr. 19, 2021).
- Father had minimal contact: first saw Child in 2021 after ~5 years, completed a psychological evaluation but did not complete parenting classes or mental-health treatment; had recent OVI convictions, probation, and >$5,000 child-support arrears.
- Michigan ICPC recommended placement with Father, but BCDJFS declined due to an abbreviated ICPC report, missing criminal/household histories, and other concerns.
- Juvenile court (magistrate) granted permanent custody to BCDJFS under R.C. 2151.414; Father appealed arguing error in findings (abandonment, reasonable-placement period, best interest). Appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (BCDJFS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether granting permanent custody to BCDJFS was erroneous under R.C. 2151.414 | Court erred in finding abandonment and that placement with Father was not appropriate; termination not in Child's best interest | Statutory standards met: 12-of-22 custody satisfied; abandonment/other grounds proven; best-interest factors favor agency | Affirmed: statutory standards met by clear and convincing evidence; permanent custody proper |
| 2. Whether the "12 of 22" statutory ground was satisfied | (Father did not contest 12-of-22 on appeal) | Child had been in BCDJFS temporary custody for >12 of 22 months | Held: 12-of-22 satisfied and unchallenged; alone supports custody award |
| 3. Whether award was in Child's best interest under R.C. 2151.414(D) | Father asserted permanent custody was not in Child's best interest | Agency: Child bonded to foster family; Father is essentially a stranger (no bond), has substance/OVI history, instability, and financial problems | Held: Best-interest factors favor BCDJFS; permanence and attachment to foster family support custody award |
| 4. Whether BCDJFS failed statutory reunification duties / whether ICPC process required placement with Father | Father argued BCDJFS did not fulfill reunification duties and should have accepted Michigan ICPC placement | BCDJFS coordinated services/visits, declined Michigan placement because ICPC report was incomplete and raised safety concerns | Held: Court need not resolve reunification challenge because 12-of-22 was dispositive; record shows agency made diligent efforts and concerns about ICPC were legitimate |
Key Cases Cited
- No key authorities with official, published reporter citations are cited in the opinion; the opinion principally cites Ohio appellate slip opinions and statutory provisions.