2013 Ohio 3513
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Mother (Leslie G.) and Michael K. are parents of five children (ages 4–14). The three older children have a different biological father who is incarcerated and not a party.
- Children were removed May 2010 after police discovered methamphetamine-manufacturing paraphernalia; both parents pled guilty to reduced drug and child-endangering charges and were incarcerated.
- CSB obtained temporary custody; after parents were released to Reentry programs, CSB moved for permanent custody. Trial court initially granted permanent custody; this court reversed and remanded for reliance on an inapplicable statutory factor.
- On remand CSB proceeded on its original motion, supplemented the record with post-release evidence, and the juvenile court again granted CSB permanent custody and terminated parental rights.
- Key factual findings supporting permanent custody: parents had prior juvenile-court involvement, significant substance-abuse histories, mental-health diagnoses (Mother: borderline personality, depression; Father: antisocial traits), incomplete compliance with recommended counseling/treatment, recent relapse by Michael, unstable employment/housing plans, and foster family willing to adopt.
- Guardian ad litem favored reunification after observing family bonds, but the caseworker and court relied on parents' failure to remedy conditions and children’s need for permanency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CSB proved under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) that parents failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing removal | Mother/Michael: they completed many services and rehabilitative programs; criminal/drug issues were addressed and do not persist | CSB: parents have long histories of substance abuse, mental-health issues, prior juvenile interventions, incomplete follow-through, relapse (Michael), and thus failed to remedy conditions | Court held clear and convincing evidence supported finding under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) that children could not/should not be placed with parents within a reasonable time |
| Whether permanent custody to CSB is in the children’s best interests under R.C. 2151.414(D) | Mother/Michael: strong parent–child bonds; GAL recommended one more chance; children expressed desire to reunify | CSB: custodial history, behavioral and school problems, foster family stability and willingness to adopt, lack of reliable plans for parental stability/treatment | Court held permanent custody is in children's best interests; termination of parental rights affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (1996) (establishes two-prong permanent-custody test: conditions under R.C. 2151.414(E) and best-interest analysis under R.C. 2151.414(D))