2020 Ohio 5246
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- In 2017 HCJFS removed six children after reports of mother’s physical abuse and domestic-violence arrest; children were later adjudicated neglected and dependent.
- HCJFS’s reunification plan required parenting classes, therapy, visitation, random drug screens, and stable housing/income; mother completed parenting classes and began therapy but missed visits, admitted marijuana use, and could not verify steady employment or housing.
- D.F. was placed in foster care and remained in agency custody; K.F. lived with J.M., who was not the biological father but sought legal custody and had cared for K.F. since Oct. 2017.
- HCJFS moved for permanent custody of D.F. and for termination of temporary custody of K.F. with legal custody awarded to J.M.; a three‑day hearing was held.
- The magistrate granted permanent custody of D.F. to HCJFS and legal custody of K.F. to J.M.; the juvenile court adopted the magistrate’s decision. Mother appealed only the juvenile court’s best‑interest findings.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | HCJFS / J.M.’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody of D.F. to HCJFS is supported by clear and convincing evidence | Mother: best‑interest findings were unsupported or against manifest weight | HCJFS: mother failed to remedy removal conditions (unstable housing/income, inconsistent visitation, behavioral triggers), D.F. bonded with foster parent | Affirmed: court’s R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) analysis and permanent‑custody award supported by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether legal custody of K.F. should be awarded to J.M. | Mother: best‑interest findings were unsupported or against manifest weight | J.M./HCJFS: K.F. is bonded to J.M.; J.M. provides stable home, income, school involvement, approved home study; mother minimally involved | Affirmed: juvenile court did not abuse discretion; legal custody to J.M. is in K.F.’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- In re W.W., 2011-Ohio-4912 (First Dist. Ct. App.) (standard for clear‑and‑convincing review in permanent‑custody appeals)
- In re A.B., 2015-Ohio-3247 (First Dist. Ct. App.) (standards for sufficiency and manifest‑weight review in custody matters)
- In re E.B., 2019-Ohio-3943 (First Dist. Ct. App.) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for legal‑custody determinations)
- In re F.B.D., 2019-Ohio-2562 (First Dist. Ct. App.) (legal‑custody review standard)
- In re A.W., 2015-Ohio-489 (First Dist. Ct. App.) (applying R.C. 2151.414(D) best‑interest factors to dispositional decisions)
- In re Z., 2019-Ohio-1617 (First Dist. Ct. App.) (R.C. 2151.414(D) factors guide custody and disposition)
- In re E.R.M., 2020-Ohio-2806 (First Dist. Ct. App.) (same)