In re D.R.
2018 Ohio 522
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In July 2015 LCCS removed three children after the newborn (W.R.) tested positive for cocaine and opiates; parents entered a safety plan that failed to be implemented. Temporary custody was awarded to LCCS and a reunification case plan (substance‑abuse and mental‑health treatment, supervised visitation, services for the children) was imposed.
- Mother initially complied, completed treatment, and was granted legal custody in July 2016; she relapsed shortly thereafter. In September 2016 she gave birth to another child who tested positive for cocaine and methadone and mother tested positive for cocaine. LCCS again obtained temporary custody.
- Mother repeatedly entered and left multiple treatment programs (drug court, inpatient/residential programs, detoxes) and had positive drug/alcohol screens through early 2017; she stopped engaging with the agency and last visited the children in April 2017.
- LCCS filed for permanent custody in April 2017. At the August 2017 permanent‑custody hearing mother did not appear; counsel moved to withdraw under Anders after finding no meritorious appeal.
- The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that the children could not or should not be placed with either parent (R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), (2), (4), (16)) and that permanent custody to LCCS was in the children’s best interest (R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)); parental rights were terminated. The court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (LCCS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether awarding permanent custody to LCCS was in children’s best interest | Permanent custody necessary to secure a stable, adoptive placement; children thriving in foster homes; older children want to stay; GAL recommends custody to LCCS | Mother (through counsel) suggested no meritorious challenge; potential contest that best interest was not shown | Court: Affirmed permanent custody — credible evidence supported best‑interest findings |
| Whether LCCS made reasonable efforts to prevent removal and to reunify (R.C. 2151.414(E)(1)) | LCCS provided case plans, treatment referrals, drug‑court placement, supervised visitation, interstate home‑study attempt; agency made reasonable, diligent efforts | Mother argued (via counsel’s review) no appealable issue; implicitly contested that more could be done | Court: LCCS made reasonable efforts; evidence supported finding mother failed to remedy conditions |
| Whether LCCS made reasonable efforts to finalize a permanency plan (adoption) | Foster families willing to adopt but could not finalize without permanent custody; agency pursued adoption planning | Mother did not preserve contact or complete treatment to allow return or preclude adoption planning | Court: LCCS took sufficient steps toward permanency; adoption planning justified permanent custody |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures when appointed counsel seeks to withdraw on grounds appeal is frivolous)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (manifest‑weight‑of‑the‑evidence standard explanation)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (discussion of reasonable‑efforts requirement and scope at permanency hearings)
- In re Weaver, 79 Ohio App.3d 59 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992) (definition of "reasonable effort")