2018 Ohio 2260
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Three children (D.M., Ra.M., Ry.M.) were removed and placed in temporary custody of Preble County Dept. of Jobs & Family Services (PCDJFS) in March 2016; dependency adjudication followed after Father admitted dependency and Mother failed to appear.
- Reunification case plans required parents to secure housing/employment, complete psychological and substance-abuse assessments and counseling, attend parenting classes, submit drug screens, and attend visitation.
- Children remained in PCDJFS temporary custody through multiple extensions; PCDJFS sought permanent custody in June 2017, alleging the children had been in agency custody 12 of 22 months and could not be returned to parents in a reasonable time.
- Evidence at the permanent-custody hearing: parents remained largely unemployed/unstably housed, had criminal histories and periods of incarceration, provided inconsistent visitation, failed to complete major case-plan tasks, and had drug-screen issues (positive amphetamine results); children were placed together with a foster parent bonded to them and seeking adoption.
- Juvenile court granted PCDJFS permanent custody and denied parents’ motions for a second six-month extension; both parents appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | Father's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hold permanent-custody hearing because agency filed extension motion after R.C. 2151.353(G) "sunset" date | Mother: Extension motion filed after one-year sunset terminated temporary custody and divested court of jurisdiction | PCDJFS/Court: Even if sunset passed, court retained continuing jurisdiction and could enter dispositional orders when original problems remained | Court: Mother forfeited timely objection; on merits court retained discretion to order dispositional relief because parents had not remedied conditions and acted within Young Children principle |
| Whether PCDJFS proved by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody was in children’s best interest (R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) / (D)) | Father: Agency failed to meet best-interest standard; further six-month extension could allow reunification | PCDJFS/Court: Parents made insufficient progress on case plans, posed continuing risks (drug use, criminality, no housing/employment); children bonded to foster parent | Court: Clear and convincing evidence supported best-interest finding; permanent custody affirmed |
| Whether juvenile court abused discretion in denying father a second six-month extension of temporary custody (R.C. 2151.415) | Father: Showed potential to complete case plan within additional six months | PCDJFS/Court: Father had not shown substantial progress or reasonable likelihood of reunification within extension period | Court: No abuse of discretion; extension statute permissive and father failed to meet statutory factors |
| Whether the judgment was against manifest weight of the evidence | Father: Trial court lost its way given his testimony of love and intent | PCDJFS/Court: Credible record favored agency—samples of noncompliance, criminal conduct, and foster bond | Court: Findings supported by credible evidence; not against manifest weight |
Key Cases Cited
- Schade v. Carnegie Body Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 207 (definition of plain error in civil cases)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (plain-error standard in civil context)
- In re Young Children, 76 Ohio St.3d 632 (juvenile court retains continuing jurisdiction after sunset date but cannot blindly excuse agency failures; court may order dispositional relief when original problems persist)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (state must prove grounds for termination of parental rights by clear and convincing evidence)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (parental rights as fundamental liberty interest)
- Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (parental rights recognized as essential liberty interest)