2021 Ohio 3984
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- D.H. was born July 24, 2019 and tested positive for cocaine at birth; RCCS took custody and the child has been in RCCS/relative/foster care since September 2019.
- D.H. has lived with her adult brother (J.A.) and his wife since infancy; they are bonded to the child and have completed foster training and seek to adopt.
- Father’s case plan required substance-abuse treatment, random drug testing, mental-health assessment/treatment, parenting classes, and stable housing/employment.
- Father repeatedly failed drug tests (including a cocaine relapse shortly before the hearing), had unstable and unsuitable housing (no electricity/running water, infestations), missed and was a no‑show for many visits, and was discharged from counseling for noncompliance multiple times.
- RCCS moved for permanent custody (March 1, 2021); the magistrate granted permanent custody on June 24, 2021, and the juvenile court adopted that decision. Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | RCCS / Trial Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence showed D.H. cannot/should not be placed with Father within a reasonable time (R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)/(E)) | Trial court lacked relevant, competent, credible evidence; Father could be ready in a few months. | Father failed to remedy removal conditions: ongoing substance use, unstable housing, noncompliance with case plan, lack of visitation/bond. Also alternative statutory ground: child in temporary custody >12 of 22 months. | Affirmed. Court found competent, credible evidence and relied also on the 12/22‑month statutory ground. |
| Whether RCCS made reasonable reunification efforts | RCCS failed (didn’t obtain probation records, delayed restarting visits). | Agency made reasonable and documented efforts; delays were due to Father’s relapse, inability to pass drug tests, and his failure to engage. | Affirmed. Trial court’s reasonable‑efforts findings supported. |
| Whether the court abused discretion by not extending temporary custody 6 months (R.C. 2151.415) | Father would complete counseling and secure housing within the extension period. | No significant progress on case plan, ongoing substance use, unsuitable home; no reasonable belief child reunified within six months. | Affirmed. Extension was not warranted. |
| Whether permanent‑custody best‑interest finding was against manifest weight/sufficiency | Father is in counseling, will have housing, and wants custody. | Child is bonded to stable foster family seeking adoption; Father lacks bond, has unresolved substance and housing issues, and limited visitation. | Affirmed. Court properly weighed R.C. 2151.414(D) factors and found permanent custody in child’s best interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (parental right is an essential civil right)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (right to raise a child is fundamental)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (appellate review defer to trial court where competent, credible evidence supports finding)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (credibility and weight of evidence are for the trier of fact)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (deference to trial court in child‑custody credibility determinations)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (timing and scope of reasonable‑efforts findings by agency)