2021 Ohio 3821
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Dec. 21, 2018: Mother was intoxicated, got into a physical altercation, and failed to retrieve D.H. (and sibling) from daycare; police removed the children and CCDCFS intervened.
- Dec. 24, 2018: CCDCFS obtained predispositional temporary custody; Mother later admitted neglect and D.H. was adjudicated neglected.
- Case plan required mental-health and substance-abuse services; Mother attended counseling sporadically, failed to complete agency AOD assessments or treatment, had inconsistent drug/alcohol screens, and was arrested for OVI in June 2020.
- D.H. diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder and adjustment disorder; his aggressive behaviors escalated after in‑person visits with Mother and he was placed in residential treatment.
- Oct. 30, 2020: CCDCFS moved for permanent custody due to lack of progress; trial occurred in March 2021.
- Trial court found D.H. had been in agency custody 12+ months of a consecutive 22‑month period, Mother had not benefitted from her plan, and permanent custody was in D.H.’s best interest; this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by awarding permanent custody to the agency | Mother: award not supported by clear and convincing evidence | CCDCFS: statutory factors met; Mother failed to complete/benefit from case plan; child needs permanency | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; clear and convincing evidence supports permanent custody |
| Whether R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) (12+ months in custody) was established | Mother: conceded this finding | CCDCFS: D.H. was in custody from Dec. 24, 2018 until filing of motion Oct. 30, 2020 | Court: factor applies; trial court may proceed to best-interest analysis |
| Whether permanent custody is in child’s best interest under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) | Mother: argued she had substantially complied and improved | CCDCFS: Mother made minimal progress, unresolved substance/mental‑health issues, child’s behavior worsened after visits | Court: best-interest factors weigh for permanent custody; safe, stable placement not achievable with Mother |
| Role of child’s expressed wishes | Mother: child expressed desire to return at times | CCDCFS/guardian: child’s wishes inconsistent; recent statements conflicted | Court: considered child’s inconsistent wishes but relied on overall best-interest evidence favoring permanency |
Key Cases Cited
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (Ohio 1954) (defines "clear and convincing" evidence standard)
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71, 564 N.E.2d 54 (Ohio 1990) (appellate review when sufficiency of evidence with heightened standard is required)
- Masters v. Masters, 69 Ohio St.3d 83, 630 N.E.2d 665 (Ohio 1994) (standard of review for custody determinations — abuse of discretion)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498, 857 N.E.2d 532 (Ohio 2006) (no single best‑interest factor is dispositive)
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163, 818 N.E.2d 1176 (Ohio 2004) (calculation of the 12‑of‑22‑month custody period under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d))