2022 Ohio 4553
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Twins Dominic (medically complex: short bowel syndrome, G-tube, central line, orthopedic needs) and Christopher born prematurely in June 2018; Mother died of an overdose in Aug. 2019 and the twins entered CCDJFS custody the same day.
- Father was incarcerated from May 2019 to Dec. 2020 and had minimal contact with the children thereafter; he was also significantly behind on child support for other children.
- CCDJFS placed the twins with foster caregivers who provided intensive medical care for Dominic; the foster parents were bonded to the children and provided frequent hospital visits and nightly care.
- Father was later released, given a remand to complete a case plan (housing, employment, medical training, mental‑health/drug assessments, visitation), but failed to secure stable housing, reliable income, transportation, or complete home‑based medical supervision.
- The juvenile court found (1) permanent custody to CCDJFS was in the twins’ best interests, and (2) statutory grounds for termination were met (including the ‘‘12 of 22’’ custody period and statutory abandonment). Father appealed only the permanency/best‑interest determination.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | CCDJFS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court erred in granting permanent custody to CCDJFS (manifest‑weight / clear‑and‑convincing challenge) | Court “lost its way”; decision not supported by clear and convincing evidence | Permanent custody is supported by evidence of abandonment, failure to complete case plan, instability, and Dominic’s special medical needs | Affirmed: court’s best‑interest finding supported by clear and convincing evidence and not against manifest weight |
| Whether statutory second‑prong grounds (R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)) were met (including ‘‘12 of 22’’ and abandonment) | Father did not contest the statutory findings on appeal (but contested overall custody award) | Twins were in CCDJFS custody Aug. 2019–Sept. 2021 (>12 of 22) and Father failed >90 days contact while incarcerated = statutory abandonment | Affirmed: ‘‘12 of 22’’ and abandonment findings supported; Father did not challenge them on appeal |
| Whether Father’s completion of case plan and capacity to care for medically fragile child supported reunification | Father pointed to prior training and some case‑plan compliance; argued he could care for children | Father lacked stable housing in his name, reliable income, a driver’s license/transportation, complete home‑based medical supervision, and had risky reliance on girlfriend’s benefits | Held: Father’s lack of stable housing, income, transportation, and lapse in demonstrated medical competence counseled against reunification; court reasonable to deny custody |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (termination of parental rights requires proof by clear and convincing evidence)