2019 Ohio 2270
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Child Da.R., born July 2016, was removed from parents Felicity Berry and Joshua Ross at birth and placed in agency custody; older sibling had previously been removed and parental rights later terminated.
- Agency developed multiple case plans requiring parenting coaching, medical cooperation, developmental services, and psychological evaluations; parents received individualized in‑home coaching and services from the Board of Developmental Disabilities.
- Da.R. has significant developmental and medical needs requiring ongoing therapies and frequent appointments; foster parents provided stable, therapeutically responsive care and intended to adopt.
- Da.R. remained in agency temporary custody for over 12 of the prior 22 months; Agency filed for permanent custody in February 2018 and the hearing occurred June 2018.
- Guardian ad litem and multiple service providers reported persistent deficiencies in parents’ ability to maintain a safe, clean home and to manage medical appointments despite extensive supports; they concluded parents required constant supervision.
- Trial court granted Agency’s motion for permanent custody and terminated parental rights; appellants appealed, arguing insufficient reasonable efforts, lack of clear and convincing evidence for termination, manifest weight error, and due process violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Agency made reasonable efforts to reunify | Berry/Ross: Agency failed to provide adequate case planning and diligent efforts | Agency: Provided extensive, repeated services (coaches, DD services, counseling, transportation, payee, etc.) tailored to parents’ disabilities | Held: Agency made reasonable efforts; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supports terminating parental rights (statutory 2151.414 factors / best interest) | Berry/Ross: Evidence did not show termination was in child’s best interest | Agency: Child needs legally secure placement; parents cannot safely care for child given medical needs and inconsistent progress | Held: Clear and convincing evidence supported termination; best‑interest factors favor permanent custody to Agency |
| Whether termination was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Berry/Ross: Trial court’s decision contradicted evidence of parental love and occasional improvements | Agency: Record contains competent, credible evidence of chronic deficiencies and foster placement benefits | Held: Not against manifest weight; judgment affirmed |
| Whether Berry was denied due process | Berry: Termination infringed fundamental right to parent and lacked procedural fairness | Agency/ Court: Berry had counsel, chance to cross‑examine and present witnesses; full hearing held | Held: No due process violation; procedural rights were observed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 556 N.E.2d 1169 (Ohio 1990) (parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care of their children but rights may be terminated with due process)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 862 N.E.2d 816 (Ohio 2007) (state must make reasonable efforts to reunify before terminating parental rights)