2021 Ohio 1650
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Children D.T. (b. 2012) and M.T. (b. 2015) were removed after exposure to domestic violence; parents stipulated the children were dependent and children placed in temporary custody of Summit County Children Services Board (CSB).
- Initial and amended case plans required both parents (and Father individually) to attend mental‑health, parenting, anger‑management, substance‑abuse assessments/treatment, and comply with probation and related criminal‑case directives.
- Over ~3+ years the children lived together in a therapeutic foster home; Mother eventually voluntarily relinquished parental rights; Father maintained regular visitation but the children expressed anxiety and reluctance to see him.
- Father completed some courses/assessments but repeatedly minimized substance‑use, mental‑health, and domestic‑violence issues, tested positive for amphetamines, and was convicted of a violent offense during the case.
- Juvenile court found CSB had used reasonable efforts at each statutory hearing, denied alternative custody motions, and granted CSB’s motion for permanent custody; Father appealed arguing manifest‑weight error and inadequate reunification efforts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether awarding permanent custody to CSB was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Father: he substantially complied with case plan and wanted reunification; award contrary to evidence | CSB: children need permanence; Father continued substance use, violence, lacked insight, children anxious about visits | Court: No — evidence (clear and convincing) supports best‑interest finding for permanent custody |
| Whether CSB failed to provide reasonable reunification efforts | Father: agency did not provide adequate reunification efforts | CSB: juvenile court repeatedly found reasonable efforts; parents did not timely object | Court: Father forfeited challenge by not objecting at hearings; no plain error shown; reasonable efforts established |
| Whether Father’s compliance with case plan precluded termination | Father: substantial completion of objectives warrants keeping custody or legal custody | CSB: compliance was incomplete/insincere; he continued illegal drug use and domestic violence; no meaningful insight or sustained change | Court: Compliance is relevant but not dispositive; Father’s limited, inconsistent progress insufficient to overcome best‑interest concerns |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for manifest‑weight review)
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (1996) (two‑pronged permanent custody test)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (1985) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence standard)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (reasonable‑efforts determination need only be made at permanent custody hearing if not previously established)