In re D.S.
2022 Ohio 515
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2022Background
- D.S., born March 2017, was adjudicated abused, neglected, and dependent; temporary custody to HCJFS and placed with foster parents.
- Father has a history of substance abuse and mental-health problems; mother died of a drug overdose while the case was pending.
- Father completed a prior case plan and briefly received legal custody in 2018; concerns about his erratic behavior led grandmother to seek placement elsewhere in late 2019–2020.
- HCJFS obtained interim custody in August 2020 and filed for permanent custody; procedural refilings occurred to meet statutory timeframes and a magistrate granted permanent custody on June 10, 2021.
- The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that R.C. 2151.414(E) factors (E(1), (2), (4), (10)) applied: father repeatedly refused to sign releases or engage in services, had ongoing substance- and mental-health issues, lacked contact/support for the child, and had effectively abandoned the child.
- Father appealed only the R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) finding (that the child cannot or should not be placed with him within a reasonable time); the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear-and-convincing evidence supports R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) (child cannot or should not be placed with father within a reasonable time) | HCJFS: E(1), E(2), E(4), and E(10) are satisfied because father refused to sign releases or engage in case-plan services, has unresolved substance/mental-health issues, ceased visits/support, and abandoned the child | Father: Evidence insufficient and against manifest weight; procedural defect—case plan was not filed until after dispositional hearing and no specific mental-health diagnosis proven | Affirmed. Court found clear-and-convincing evidence of E(1), E(2), E(4), E(10); father's challenge overruled and permanent custody to HCJFS upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954) (defines the clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard)
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95, 661 N.E.2d 738 (1996) (holding that proof of any one R.C. 2151.414(E) factor can satisfy the B(1) predicate)
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538, 895 N.E.2d 809 (2008) (applies the clear-and-convincing standard in juvenile-custody proceedings)