In re D.M., 2020 Ohio 3273

Background

Mother (F.W.) and Father were teenagers when their three children were born (D.M. 2014, L.W. 2015, L.M. 2016); HCJFS removed the children after L.W. tested positive for marijuana at birth and Mother could not account for D.M.’s whereabouts.
Children were adjudicated dependent; HCJFS required Mother to complete a case plan (diagnostic assessment, therapy, random drug screens, parenting education, supervised visitation).
Mother completed a diagnostic assessment, attended therapy, completed parenting classes, and had negative drug screens; HCJFS nonetheless sought permanent custody (motion filed May 4, 2017).
A magistrate granted permanent custody in 2018 after a trial in which Mother was denied a continuance to testify; this court reversed and remanded because Mother was denied her right to testify.
On remand Mother testified and presented evidence, but the magistrate again awarded permanent custody (Aug. 13, 2019); the juvenile court adopted the decision. The appellate court reversed, holding HCJFS failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody was warranted, and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether HCJFS proved first-prong grounds under R.C. 2151.414(B)/(E)(1) (that L.M. could not/should not be returned because Mother failed to remedy conditions)	HCJFS: Mother made insufficient progress on the case plan and had prior positive drug tests and immature parenting, so L.M. should not be returned	Mother: She completed required services (assessment, therapy, parenting class), had negative drug screens, and addressed the conditions that caused removal	Reversed as to L.M.: evidence was not clear and convincing that Mother failed to remedy the conditions that led to removal
Whether permanent custody was in the children’s best interest under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)	HCJFS: Children are bonded with foster family, parents did not complete all services or visit regularly, and only permanent custody would provide a legally secure placement	Mother: She matured, has stable housing and work, completed required services, and bond with Mother exists; termination is a last resort	Reversed: HCJFS did not meet its burden to show permanent custody was the only means to secure the children’s welfare
Whether parenting coaching was a required (journalized) case-plan component and whether Mother completed the case plan	HCJFS: Mother failed to complete parenting-coaching and thus failed the parenting component	Mother: Coaching was a recommendation, not journalized as a requirement; she completed parenting education and participated in coaching voluntarily; case manager testified she completed parenting	Held: Parenting coaching was not a journalized requirement; Mother satisfied the parenting-education component
Whether the evidence supported findings that Mother failed to visit regularly or struggled during visits	HCJFS: Foster father and a visitation facilitator reported missed visits and difficulty managing three young children	Mother: Caseworker testified Mother visited regularly; the facilitator’s critical observations were dated; no visitation records were submitted	Held: Evidence was equivocal and outdated; findings about visitation/noncompliance were not supported by clear and convincing evidence

Key Cases Cited

In re Young Children, 76 Ohio St.3d 632, 669 N.E.2d 1140 (1996) (courts may retain jurisdiction under R.C. 2151.415 when original conditions remain unresolved)
Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 972 N.E.2d 517 (2012) (standard for reviewing weight-of-evidence and deference to factfinder)
Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (1984) (presumption in favor of the factfinder's resolution of conflicts)
In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163, 818 N.E.2d 1176 (2004) (a motion for permanent custody must allege current grounds)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (state bears burden of proof before terminating parental rights)
In re Perales, 52 Ohio St.2d 89, 369 N.E.2d 1047 (1977) (parents’ custody rights are fundamental)
In re D.A., 113 Ohio St.3d 88, 862 N.E.2d 829 (2007) (termination of parental rights is a remedy of last resort)
In re M.P., 46 N.E.3d 221 (Ohio 2015) (removal and adjudication principles)