In re D.H.
2018 Ohio 630
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Mother Lisa Miller appealed the termination of her parental rights and the grant of permanent custody of her three minor sons (D.H., b.2007; E.S., b.2011; A.S., b.2012) to Ashtabula County Children Services after their January 2015 removal for alleged drug manufacturing/use and neglect.
- Children were adjudicated dependent in April 2015 and placed in foster/kinship care; D.H. was later moved to therapeutic foster care due to behavioral concerns.
- The Agency moved for permanent custody on August 16, 2016, alleging among other theories that the children had been in Agency custody for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period (R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d)).
- A combined hearing was held November 28, 2016; the magistrate recommended permanent custody to the Agency. The trial court adopted that recommendation in October 2017, terminating parental rights of Miller and the fathers.
- Miller argued on appeal that (1) the Agency lacked clear-and-convincing proof she could not parent within a reasonable time, (2) she had remedied removal conditions, (3) the Agency failed to make reasonable reunification efforts, and (4) permanent custody was not in the children’s best interests. The court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Miller) | Defendant's Argument (Agency) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear-and-convincing evidence supported permanent custody based on 12-of-22-month custody rule (R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d)) | Miller did not dispute custody length but challenged alternative findings; argued Agency failed to prove other elements | Agency showed children were in custody >12 of prior 22 months and satisfied statutory predicate for permanent custody | Court held R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) was satisfied and that alone justified permanent custody |
| Whether children could be placed with parents within a reasonable time (R.C. 2151.414(E)) | Miller argued she could parent upon release and completion of treatment; pointed to visits and parenting class completion | Agency pointed to Miller’s unresolved substance issues, incarceration, instability, and failure to complete treatment or mental health services | Court declined to rely on this alternative ground (unnecessary because (d) was met) but found mother’s circumstances insufficient to rebut permanency need |
| Whether Agency used reasonable reunification efforts | Miller contended Agency failed to assist and provide adequate services/support | Agency documented services, case plan, supervised visits, and referrals; agency evidence of attempts to reunify presented | Court did not address in detail because (d) controlled; trial record supports Agency efforts in any event |
| Whether permanent custody was in the children’s best interests (R.C. 2151.414(D)) | Miller argued ongoing parent-child contact and her love supported continued temporary custody until release | Agency, GAL, and caregivers emphasized children’s need for permanency, children’s progress with placements, and limited parental bonding/commitment (including father’s minimal contact) | Court found, after weighing interaction, custodial history, bonding with foster family, and children’s needs, that permanent custody to the Agency was in the children’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (1997) (parental rights are a fundamental interest but subject to child’s welfare)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (1979) (parental rights are subject to the child’s best interest)
- Tewarson v. Simon, 141 Ohio App.3d 103 (9th Dist. 2001) (describing civil manifest-weight standard and appellate review language applied to credibility and weighing evidence)