In re D.C., 2017 Ohio 8728

Mother (J.C.) previously lost permanent custody of two older children in 2012 after agency findings that she remained involved with the children’s abuser (father) despite medical and legal evidence of inflicted injury to one child.
In December 2016 mother gave birth to child 3; Lucas County Children Services (the agency) removed the newborn at discharge and filed a dependency/neglect complaint and obtained interim custody.
Agency alleged the same core risk: mother’s ongoing relationship/contact with the child 3 father, who has a history of violence and a conviction for injuring the older child.
Hearings were held in April 2017; witnesses included the hospital social worker, agency caseworker, and guardian ad litem (GAL), who all testified about mother–father contact and mother’s lack of insight into father’s dangerousness.
Mother argued she had rectified the conditions that led to the prior terminations and that a non-relative (M.C.) with an approved home study should be awarded legal custody; agency argued mother still maintained contact with father and lacked insight.
The juvenile court granted permanent custody to the agency under R.C. 2151.353(A)(4) and R.C. 2151.414, finding mother failed to rebut the presumption created by prior involuntary terminations; this appeal affirmed.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Agency’s Argument	Held
Whether mother proved by clear and convincing evidence she remedied the conditions causing prior terminations and can provide a legally secure permanent placement	Mother: She completed prior services, has employment and housing, is in counseling, and is not in an ongoing relationship with father	Agency: Mother continued contact/relationship with father, lacks insight into risk he poses, and conditions remain unchanged	Court: Mother failed to prove remediation or ability to provide a legally secure placement; permanent custody to agency affirmed
Whether the court erred by not awarding legal custody to M.C., a non-relative with an approved home study and signed custody understanding	Mother: Trial court should have awarded legal custody to M.C. as an available placement	Agency: Placement decisions are within trial court discretion; placement via agency is appropriate	Court: Mother lacks standing to challenge denial of custody to a particular third party; assignment of error not well taken

Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (1984) (trial judge best positioned to assess witness credibility and demeanor)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
Karches v. Cincinnati, 38 Ohio St.3d 12 (1988) (presumption in favor of trial court findings; every reasonable presumption must be made in favor of judgment)
C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (1978) (judgment supported by some competent, credible evidence will not be reversed)