2023 Ohio 4147
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Father (R.D.) is parent of four children removed after newborn H.D. tested positive for oxycodone; FCCS obtained emergency custody in Oct. 2019 and children were adjudicated abused/dependent and placed in FCCS temporary custody in Mar. 2020.
- Case plan (Mar. 23, 2020) required father to submit to random drug screens, complete a domestic-violence assessment, obtain stable housing/income, and participate in visitation and family counseling.
- Multiple extensions of temporary custody; FCCS filed for permanent custody on July 28, 2021; juvenile court granted permanent custody to FCCS on Dec. 27, 2022.
- Father appealed, arguing (1) FCCS failed to make reasonable and diligent reunification efforts (particularly by failing to refer him to family counseling, which blocked reunification/visits), (2) hearsay admission that foster parents were willing/able to adopt was improper, and (3) termination was not last resort because father completed the case plan to the extent possible.
- At the permanent-custody hearing the agency presented no documentary evidence of referrals or services for father; the current caseworker could not verify past referrals or obtain records; father testified he completed several programs but lacked referrals/verification.
- Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the record lacked evidence that FCCS made reasonable, diligent reunification efforts under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) and 2151.419(A)(1); the hearsay assignment was overruled as harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FCCS made reasonable case-planning and diligent efforts to reunify (R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), 2151.419(A)(1)) | Father: FCCS failed to refer him to family counseling and otherwise failed to assist, so reunification efforts were not reasonable/diligent | FCCS: reasonable efforts were made over the course of the case and earlier findings/adoptions established efforts | Held for Father: appellate court found the record lacks evidence of specific referrals or diligent efforts and reversed/remanded for further factual finding |
| Whether GAL’s testimony that foster parents were "willing and able to adopt" was inadmissible hearsay | Father: statement was hearsay and inadmissible | FCCS: statement fits within present-sense-impression/statement of intent exceptions; even if hearsay, father cannot show reliance | Held for FCCS: court overruled this assignment as harmless—no demonstrated reliance by trial court |
| Whether termination was last-resort and supported despite father’s partial completion of case plan | Father: he completed what he could but agency’s failures prevented full compliance; termination was not last resort | FCCS: children had been in custody long enough and reunification was not feasible | Held for Father on this aspect: appellate court concluded insufficiency of agency efforts undermined permanent-custody finding and sustained the assignment (remand) |
Key Cases Cited
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (defines the clear-and-convincing standard)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (explains scope of R.C. 2151.419 and agency reasonable-efforts obligations)
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (1997) (parental custody is an essential civil right but subject to child’s welfare)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (1979) (child’s welfare is the controlling principle in custody decisions)
- Suter v. Artist M., 503 U.S. 347 (1992) (the meaning of "reasonable efforts" varies with case circumstances)