2018 Ohio 4786
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- C.S. was born April 9, 2018; mother (appellant) was incarcerated on felony drug charges at the time; Warren County Children Services (agency) obtained emergency temporary custody and sought permanent custody in its original complaint.
- Parents have a long history of substance abuse; two older siblings were born drug-positive and permanent custody of those children had previously been granted to the agency.
- Agency placed C.S. in the same foster-to-adopt home that previously adopted the siblings; the child was doing well and bonded to that family.
- The court adjudicated C.S. dependent and neglected by stipulation at adjudication; a dispositional hearing followed on the agency’s request for permanent custody under R.C. 2151.353(A)(4).
- Trial court found (1) under R.C. 2151.414(E)(11) the mother failed to show she could provide a legally secure, adequate placement given prior involuntary terminations and ongoing concerns, and (2) under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) permanent custody was in the child’s best interest.
- Mother appealed, arguing the permanent-custody decision was unsupported by sufficient/manifest-weight evidence and that she received ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Agency/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody was supported by clear and convincing evidence (can child be placed with parent within a reasonable time; best interest analysis) | Mother: She achieved sobriety, obtained housing and employment, visited and bonded with child; reunification possible within a reasonable time. | Agency/CT: Longstanding drug history, prior involuntary terminations of parental rights to siblings, unstable housing and associates, sobriety largely due to incarceration; child is thriving in adoptive placement. | Court: Upheld permanent custody — mother failed to prove she could provide legally secure placement; permanent custody is in child’s best interest. |
| Whether mother received ineffective assistance of counsel at dispositional hearing | Mother: Counsel failed to object to leading/argumentative questions, certain testimony about mother’s record, and asked unhelpful questions. | Agency/CT: The contested questions were not prejudicial; objections were not clearly required, and outcome would not likely have differed. | Court: No ineffective assistance — mother failed to show reasonable probability that objections would have changed result. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (state must prove termination of parental rights by clear and convincing evidence)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test)
- In re Ament, 142 Ohio App.3d 302 (2001) (statutory framework for permanent custody in juvenile cases)