In re D.F., 2017 Ohio 2711

Mother (Brandy M.) and four children removed after oldest child (R.M.) disclosed sexual abuse by the children's father; father later convicted of rape and gross sexual imposition and incarcerated.
Noble County JFS obtained temporary custody; children placed in foster care; mother received supervised/unsupervised visitation and participated in a case plan (psychological evaluation, counseling, visits).
JFS moved for permanent custody after children had been in agency custody for at least 12 of a consecutive 22 months; grandmother sought custody but did not appeal the permanent-custody decision.
Trial court found father’s conviction triggered R.C. 2151.414(E)(7)(d) and found mother unwilling/unable to prevent abuse under R.C. 2151.414(E)(14) based on her disbelief of disclosures, failure to investigate or report, and continued minimization.
The court concluded, after weighing R.C. 2151.414(D) best-interest factors (custodial history, children’s wishes and safety concerns, improvement in foster care, inability to secure adoption without permanent custody), that permanent custody to the agency was in the children’s best interest and that the children could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.
Mother appealed, arguing (1) the E(14) finding and best-interest findings were unsupported and (2) she complied with her case plan and reasonable efforts findings were improper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 2151.414(E)(14) (unwilling/unable to prevent abuse) applied to mother	Mother: She was horrified, wanted to protect children, complied with case plan, never abused children, father is incarcerated so risk removed	JFS: Mother disbelieved disclosures, failed to investigate or report, walked in on abuse without intervening, defended father when other disclosures made	Court: Affirmed E(14) finding by clear and convincing evidence; mother was unwilling/unable to prevent abuse
Whether the trial court properly found permanent custody was in children’s best interest and whether mother’s case-plan compliance precluded permanent custody	Mother: Court failed to make specific findings on each R.C. 2151.414(D) factor; she complied with plan and visitation so custody unnecessary	JFS: Court considered factors (custodial history, safety concerns, children’s fears, need for legal permanency); plan compliance does not guarantee reunification if underlying conditions persist	Court: Specific narrative findings for all factors not required; substantial evidence supports best-interest determination; case-plan compliance alone insufficient to prevent permanent custody

Murray v. Rogers, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (Ohio 1990) (parental rights are fundamental)
Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (parental rights are protected liberty interests)
In re Smith, 77 Ohio App.3d 1 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991) (termination of parental rights likened to death penalty analogy)
In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (Ohio 1997) (discussing the gravity of parental termination)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard)
In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (Ohio 1985) (clear and convincing evidence standard for parental-termination proceedings)
In re C.C., 187 Ohio App.3d 365 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010) (case-plan compliance alone does not bar permanent custody)