In re Da.B.
2018 Ohio 689
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Father (D.B.) was arrested Nov. 14, 2015 on serious felony charges; CCDCFS removed his three children and filed for temporary custody Nov. 16, 2015. Mother had previously lost custody (2011) for substance/anger issues and was largely unavailable.
- Juvenile court committed the children to temporary custody of CCDCFS in Feb. 2016; permanency plan initially was reunification.
- CCDCFS moved to modify temporary custody to permanent custody in Aug. 2016, citing parents’ inability to provide a stable home; agency’s reports noted father was incarcerated/committed and unable to work his case plan.
- Father was found (or stipulated to a report finding) incompetent and was treated at Northcoast Behavioral Healthcare for a period; his criminal proceedings were suspended pending restoration.
- Evidentiary hearing held May 4, 2017. CCDCFS witnesses and the children’s guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody; evidence showed limited contact/support to the two younger children and inability to provide basic needs while incarcerated/committed.
- Juvenile court denied father’s request to extend temporary custody and awarded permanent custody to CCDCFS; father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (CCDCFS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying father’s motion to extend temporary custody under R.C. 2151.415(D) | Father argued extension should be granted because he might be found not guilty/released and could reunify within the six-month extension period | Agency argued reunification within six months was not reasonably likely due to serious pending charges, incarceration/commitment, and no expected release date | Denial affirmed: court may (but need not) extend; evidence showed no reasonable cause to believe reunification would occur within the extension period, so denial was not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether granting permanent custody to CCDCFS was against the manifest weight / unsupported by clear and convincing evidence under R.C. 2151.414 | Father argued evidence was insufficient (challenged use of an incompetency report and agency efforts) and that children’s wishes and contacts favored him | Agency argued statutory factors (failure to remedy conditions, incarceration, lack of parental support/visitation, and chronic mental illness) supported that children could not be placed with parents and that permanent custody was in children’s best interest; agency had made reasonable efforts given incarceration/commitment | Affirmed: clear-and-convincing evidence supported at least one R.C. 2151.414(E) factor (failure to remedy, lack of support/visitation, incarceration) and the best-interest factors favored permanent custody |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (parental rights require heightened due process protections)
- In re D.A., 113 Ohio St.3d 88 (Ohio 2007) (termination of parental rights is a last resort; high constitutional stakes)
- In re Hoffman, 97 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2002) (discussing standards and considerations for termination of parental rights)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (Ohio 1979) (noting seriousness of terminating parental rights)