In re C.T.
2020 Ohio 4965
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Mother and Father are the biological parents of C.T. (b.2013) and D.T. (b.2017); children were removed after Mother tested positive for methamphetamines, amphetamines, and oxycodone at D.T.’s birth and D.T. exhibited neonatal withdrawal.
- LCDJFS obtained emergency custody on June 20, 2017; children were adjudicated dependent and placed together in a foster-to-adopt home where they remained through the proceedings.
- Parents had case plans requiring substance-abuse treatment, random drug screens, stable housing/employment, and parenting classes; Mother completed some services but tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and a high fentanyl level on July 29, 2019; Father also tested positive for marijuana and fentanyl.
- Visitation remained supervised and did not progress because parents failed to meet case-plan requirements (drug screens, licenses, insurance, car seats). Children were bonded to foster parents; C.T. was in counseling and expressed he did not want to return to parents.
- LCDJFS filed repeated motions for permanent custody; the magistrate granted permanent custody to LCDJFS (Oct. 1, 2019); the juvenile court overruled parents’ objections and adopted the magistrate’s decision (Jan. 22, 2020). Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (LCDJFS/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court failed to consider all five best-interest factors in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a)-(e) | Court did not adequately consider all statutorily listed best-interest factors and should weigh Mother’s case-plan completion | Magistrate and trial court expressly considered the statutory factors; evidence (bonding to foster family, children’s needs, custodial history, failure to remediate) supports best-interest finding | Court held the magistrate/trial court considered the factors and the record supports the best-interest determination; claim denied |
| Whether granting permanent custody was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Permanent custody was against the manifest weight because Mother completed her case plan and reunification remained possible | Clear and convincing evidence supported permanent custody: children in agency custody ≥12 of 22 months, parents continued substance use, unstable housing, and children’s need for legally secure placement | Court held the permanent custody award was not against the manifest weight and affirmed the juvenile court |
Key Cases Cited
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (Ohio 1978) (standard for appellate manifest-weight review; courts will not reverse when supported by competent, credible evidence)
- In re Adoption of Ridenour, 61 Ohio St.3d 319 (Ohio 1991) (best-interest placement principles favoring stability and permanence)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (Ohio 2006) (trial court need not find by clear and convincing evidence that no suitable relative exists before awarding permanent custody to agency)