2018 Ohio 3434
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Infant D.R., born Dec. 2014, was adjudicated dependent in Mar. 2015 after concerns about underfeeding, jaundice, unsanitary home conditions, and parents’ inability to follow medical instructions; both parents receive services for intellectual/developmental disabilities.
- Agency provided intensive, tailored services (in‑home coaching, daycare, transportation, monthly PCT meetings, psychological evaluations, coordination with SCBDD and payee services) and placed D.R. in foster care after emergency removal in July 2015 for unmet medical needs and unsafe conditions.
- Over ~2+ years the Agency repeatedly modified case planning to accommodate the parents’ disabilities; evidence showed intermittent but unsustained parental improvements and numerous ongoing safety/medical lapses (improper bottle sanitation, medication errors, failure to follow nebulizer regimen, unsafe supervision, unsanitary housing).
- D.R. improved substantially in foster care (medical stabilization, weight gain, reduced behavioral problems); visitations were supervised, then suspended twice due to concerns that visits worsened D.R.’s medical/behavioral condition.
- Agency moved for permanent custody (Feb. 2017); after a multi‑day evidentiary hearing the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence the statutory grounds for permanent custody and that permanent custody served D.R.’s best interest, and terminated parental rights (Nov. 2017).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Agency provided reasonable case planning and diligent efforts accommodating parents’ intellectual disabilities | Felicity & Joshua: Agency failed to tailor case plan and efforts to their developmental needs; more specialized or prolonged supports were required | Agency: repeatedly adapted plan, coordinated with SCBDD and service providers, provided intensive in‑home coaching and alternatives; efforts were reasonable under the circumstances | Held for Agency: case planning and efforts were reasonable and diligent given child’s health/safety concerns |
| Whether statutory first‑prong for permanent custody was met (cannot/place within reasonable time or 12+ months custody) | Parents: claimed evidence did not establish inability to reunify or placement within reasonable time | Agency: presented testimony and evaluations showing longstanding, persistent deficits despite supports; D.R. had been in custody 12+ months of 22 months and could not be returned within a reasonable time | Held for Agency: court found R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) satisfied (both subsection (d) and (a)) |
| Whether granting permanent custody was in child’s best interest (second prong) | Parents: argued manifest weight of evidence favored continued reunification efforts; cited some improvements | Agency: emphasized child’s need for permanency, improved health in foster care, expert and provider testimony showing risks and parents’ inability to sustain safe care | Held for Agency: court found by clear and convincing evidence permanent custody served D.R.’s best interest under R.C. 2151.414(D) |
| Whether termination violated mother’s constitutional due process/equal protection rights | Mother: process/equal protection violated because agency failed to reasonably accommodate disabilities and deprived her of meaningful opportunity to reunify | Agency: due process satisfied by statutory protections and extensive services/adaptations provided; termination supported by clear and convincing evidence | Held for Agency: no constitutional violation found; appellate court affirmed termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re B.C., 141 Ohio St.3d 55 (2014) (describing statutory permanent‑custody framework and protections)
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (2004) (clarifying permanent custody test under R.C. 2151.414)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (2006) (best‑interest analysis under R.C. 2151.414(D) and no single factor is dispositive)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standards for manifest‑weight review)
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (2008) (clear and convincing standard in juvenile custody context)