In re D.R., 2023 Ohio 539

Child D.R. (b. 2012) was removed from mother's care in Nov. 2018 after domestic-violence incidents and injuries; FCCS obtained temporary custody and placed D.R. in foster care with siblings.
Trial court adjudicated D.R. abused in Feb. 2019; FCCS later moved for permanent custody in July 2020 after extensions of temporary custody.
Father's case plan required drug screens, mental-health treatment, stable housing, monthly caseworker contacts, and meeting the child’s basic needs; father was homeless for ~18 months, had minimal compliance, few in-person visits, and some positive marijuana screens (medical card introduced).
At trial, mother presented criminal docket exhibits suggesting serious convictions (some belonged to a different person, I.K.); the successor trial judge (Judge Preisse) relied on findings that father had multiple convictions including gross sexual imposition, kidnapping, escape, and failure-to-register as a sex offender despite record not supporting several of those findings.
The juvenile court granted FCCS permanent custody and terminated father’s parental rights; on appeal the Tenth District reversed, concluding the trial court’s factual errors were against the manifest weight of the evidence and prejudicial, and remanded for proper R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) best-interest analysis.

Issue	Father's Argument	FCCS/Mother's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court relied on erroneous factual findings about father’s criminal record when awarding permanent custody	Court misstated father’s convictions (attributing kidnapping, gross sexual imposition, escape, and failure-to-register convictions to him) and thus erred	Errors were harmless because other best-interest factors support custody to FCCS	Reversed: court’s misstatements were against the manifest weight and prejudicial; remand for proper analysis
Whether the permanent-custody judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence	Father had improved compliance by trial and errors in the court’s factual findings undermined the custody decision	Even without the incorrect findings, totality of evidence supports permanent custody	In part sustained: appellate court found the judgment not supported by clear and convincing evidence due to factual errors and remanded; some case-plan compliance contentions rendered moot
Whether successor judge violated Civ.R. 63(A) by not certifying familiarity with prior proceedings or granting a new trial	Judge Preisse failed to certify she reviewed prior proceedings and effectively re-started trial	Trial irregularity was not dispositive given the merits	Moot (decision reversed and remanded), so appellate court did not decide the Civ.R.63(A) claim

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parents have a fundamental liberty interest in raising their children)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (standard of proof in parental-termination proceedings)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (2008) (R.C. 2151.414 governs permanent custody standard)
In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (2006) (all best-interest factors must be weighed without giving any single factor dispositive weight)
In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (clarifies best-interest analysis under R.C. 2151.414)
In re A.M., 166 Ohio St.3d 127 (2020) (discusses thoroughness of trial-court best-interest findings)
In re D.A., 113 Ohio St.3d 88 (2007) (parental rights are fundamental but not absolute; court may consider sex-offender status in context)
In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (1990) (parental right to raise one’s children is fundamental)