2020 Ohio 6794
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Child (Dn.R.) born March 7, 2019; Shelby County Juv. Ct. granted emergency custody same day based on parents’ prior history and inability to care for older children.
- Parents stipulated to dependency; both receive services from Shelby County Board of Developmental Disabilities (SCBDD); Mother FSIQ 75 and fetal alcohol syndrome, Father FSIQ 65.
- Agency developed a case plan (one-on-one home coaching, parenting classes, therapy coordination); parents had ~115 supervised visits with a home coach (Amy Swaney) who worked closely with them.
- Service providers and foster mother testified parents repeatedly failed to learn/retain basic infant care, therapy exercises, and medical instructions; foster placement improved the child’s developmental delays.
- Agency moved for permanent custody arguing parents’ intellectual disabilities and prior involuntary terminations made reunification unlikely; parents proposed 24/7 REM in‑home support as an alternative.
- Trial court granted permanent custody; parents appealed arguing insufficient evidence, REM support could allow reunification, and more time was needed. Appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother/Father) | Defendant's Argument (Agency) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time (R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) considering (E)(1) & (E)(2)) | Parents: evidence insufficient; requested additional time; argued they attempted services and could parent with supports | Agency: parents failed to remediate despite reasonable case planning and repeated services; intellectual disabilities prevent adequate parenting within a year | Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supports findings under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) and (2) that child cannot be placed with parents within a reasonable time |
| Whether R.C. 2151.414(E)(11) applies given prior involuntary terminations | Parents: despite prior terminations, they proved they could now provide a legally secure permanent placement and adequate care (via REM 24/7 support) | Agency: burden rests on parents; they failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that prior failures were overcome | Affirmed — court found parents failed to meet burden under E(11) |
| Reliability and sufficiency of proposed REM 24/7 in‑home support as an alternative to permanent custody | Parents: REM could provide around‑the‑clock assistance enabling safe reunification | Agency: REM services are focused on parents (not legally responsible for child), are voluntary, speculative, and would not reliably address medical, safety, and caregiving deficits | Affirmed — court deemed REM speculative, insufficiently reliable, and not protective of child’s needs |
| Whether granting permanent custody is in the child’s best interest (R.C. 2151.414(D)) | Parents: strong parent–child bond and participation in services favor reunification; argued trial court undervalued bond and supports | Agency: child needs legally secure, stable placement; foster care improved child’s health and development; further delay would harm child | Affirmed — trial court found by clear and convincing evidence permanent custody served the child’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- In re B.C., 141 Ohio St.3d 55 (Ohio 2014) (describing statutory protections and procedures in permanent custody proceedings)
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 2004) (permanent custody requires satisfaction of both statutory prongs)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (standard for manifest‑weight review)
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (Ohio 2008) (clarifying clear‑and‑convincing proof standard in juvenile cases)
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1990) (appellate review assesses sufficiency of evidence to meet clear‑and‑convincing standard)
- In re Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (Ohio 1985) (review of juvenile court factfinding under clear‑and‑convincing standard)
- Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1988) (trial court’s opportunity to observe witness demeanor merits deference)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (Ohio 2006) (best‑interest analysis in permanent custody cases)
- In re Estate of Haynes, 25 Ohio St.3d 101 (Ohio 1986) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)