In re D.C.
2015 Ohio 3178
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Father A.C. is parent of two children, D.C. (removed Aug. 2013) and A.H.K. (born Sept. 2013; tested positive for drugs at birth); both children remained in foster care after removal.
- FCDJFS filed for permanent custody on Oct. 21, 2014; hearing held Feb. 10, 2015; juvenile court granted permanent custody to the agency on Mar. 3, 2015 and terminated parental rights.
- Father sought a continuance at the start of the custody hearing to obtain time to reengage with services and complete his case plan; the court denied the nearly four-month continuance.
- The agency relied on multiple statutory grounds for permanent custody, including inability to place children with parents within a reasonable time and abandonment; the court found abandonment and inability/unsuitability to place with parents.
- Father challenged denial of the continuance, the court’s “12-of-22 months” finding for A.H.K., the abandonment finding, and the best-interest determination. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Denial of continuance | Trial court abused discretion by refusing ~4-month continuance to let father reengage and complete case plan | Continuance would have prevented statutorily required disposition deadline and father delayed seeking counsel; denial within discretion | Denial affirmed — court did not abuse discretion |
| 2. 12-of-22 months for A.H.K. under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) | Court erred in finding A.H.K. had been in agency custody 12 of 22 months when motion was filed earlier than that period | Agency also alleged other grounds (cannot/should not be placed with parents) independent of 12-of-22 | Appellate court: trial court erred as to A.H.K. on 12-of-22 but error harmless because other statutory ground supported custody |
| 3. Abandonment under R.C. 2151.414(E)(10) | Father disputed abandonment — claimed contact with foster mother in Nov. 2014 showed contact with children within 90 days | Agency presented evidence father’s last direct contact was Apr. 21, 2014; statutory 90-day presumption of abandonment applies | Finding of abandonment affirmed — record supports clear and convincing evidence |
| 4. Best-interest determination for permanent custody | Father argued he substantially complied with plan and could care for children if given time | Agency and court showed father failed to complete substance assessment/testing, lacked stable housing/employment, failed to visit or support children; children bonded with foster family | Best-interest finding affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supported permanent custody to agency |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (1981) (factors for evaluating motions for continuance)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (parental-rights termination requires clear and convincing evidence)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (2004) (time between filing permanent-custody motion and hearing does not count toward 12-of-22 months requirement)
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (2008) (standards for clear and convincing proof in juvenile custody context)