2021 Ohio 3672
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- CCDCFS removed infant D.P. in July 2019 based on parental substance abuse, alleged domestic violence, and reports that Father had previously punched a 10‑year‑old; Mother had other children out of her care.
- Father established paternity (Aug. 2019) and the court-ordered case plan required parenting classes, domestic-violence counseling, and anger-management.
- Father completed parenting classes and domestic-violence counseling before trial but had not completed anger-management; he also failed to provide documentation of steady lawful income.
- Father had an outstanding felonious-assault charge and a capias for failure to appear; multiple family members alleged prior physical discipline by Father.
- D.P. had lived with the same foster family since Sept. 2019, who were bonded with him and willing to adopt; CCDCFS moved for permanent custody in Sept. 2020.
- The juvenile court (Feb. 10, 2021) granted permanent custody to CCDCFS, finding by clear and convincing evidence that D.P. could not be placed with Father within a reasonable time and that permanent custody was in the child’s best interest; this court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | CCDCFS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported finding D.P. could not be placed with Father within a reasonable time (R.C.2151.414(B)(1)(a)/2151.414(E)(1)) | Father: He had stable housing, attended/was compliant with required services (two of three completed) and needed more time within the statutory period to finish anger-management and document employment. | Agency: Father failed to complete mandated anger-management, had unresolved violent‑incident allegations and a pending felonious‑assault charge, and failed to verify income after more than a year. | Court: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence that Father failed continuously to remedy conditions; child could not/should not be placed with Father within a reasonable time. |
| Whether granting permanent custody was in D.P.’s best interest (R.C.2151.414(D)(1)) | Father: Termination was premature given his compliance and progress; no evidence of ongoing violent outbursts after participation in services. | Agency: Child’s need for permanency, strong bond with foster family, Father’s incomplete case plan and safety concerns favored permanent custody. | Court: Abuse‑of‑discretion standard — court did not abuse discretion; permanent custody was in child’s best interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard explained)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (Ohio 2006) (no single best‑interest factor predominates under R.C.2151.414(D)(1))
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parental-rights termination implicates fundamental liberty interests)
- Rivera v. Minnich, 483 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1987) (termination permanently destroys legal recognition of the parental relationship)
- In re Smith, 77 Ohio App.3d 1 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991) (termination characterized as the family‑law equivalent of the death penalty)