2022 Ohio 998
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- In Dec. 2018, two children (Dean, 17 months; Diana, 4 months) were taken into temporary custody by Clinton County Children Services (CCCS) after Mother left the children with a third party and could not be contacted; children remained in agency custody and were placed with foster parents in Apr. 2019.
- CCCS filed a reunification case plan requiring parenting, domestic-violence classes, substance/mental-health evaluation, drug screens, and stable housing; Mother was slow to progress but eventually completed many requirements and obtained employment and stable housing.
- Mother’s visitation history was inconsistent: agency records (excluding COVID/sickness cancellations) show she attended 51 of 81 in-person visits and 22 of 78 virtual visits; she had no contact between Feb. 2 and May 19, 2021 (106 days).
- CCCS moved for permanent custody in Jan. 2021, alleging abandonment and that the children had been in agency custody for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period.
- The juvenile court found the children had been in agency custody for 30 months, found abandonment (no contact >90 days), and that permanent custody to CCCS was in the children’s best interests; court entered permanent-custody order and Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | CCCS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the grant of permanent custody was against the manifest weight of the evidence / not in children’s best interests | The record does not support permanent custody; Mother completed case plan items and had made progress | Children lacked bond with Mother, Mother was inconsistent with visits, and no viable childcare plan existed; permanency is in children’s best interests | Court affirmed: evidence supports best-interest finding and custody award; not against manifest weight |
| Whether the court should have continued the hearing six more months due to COVID-19 | Pandemic justified longer continuance to allow reunification efforts | Court already continued the hearing and allowed two more months; additional extension would be barred by statutory time limits | Denied: continuance unnecessary; statutory limits preclude further extension beyond two years from shelter-care date |
| Whether Mother abandoned the children (R.C. standard) | Mother contends she had virtual contact between Feb. 2 and May 19, 2021, so abandonment finding is unsupported | Agency records show no contact (virtual or in-person) during that period | Court found abandonment proven (no contact for 106 days); Mother’s claim unsupported by record |
| Whether the statutory 12-of-22-month custody predicate was met | (Not contested on appeal) | Agency established children were in custody for 30 months | Court found predicate satisfied and this alone supports permanent custody award |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (state must prove parental-rights termination by clear and convincing evidence)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 972 N.E.2d 517 (standard for manifest-weight review in civil cases)