In re Dor.B.
2018 Ohio 2666
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In April 2015 Wood County JFS filed neglect complaints after reports the family was homeless, the children lacked basic needs, and father physically disciplined one child; temporary custody initially placed with paternal relatives and later returned to parents before JFS again obtained custody March 30, 2016.
- Over ~16 months JFS provided services, financial assistance, housing referrals, parenting programs, supervised/unsupervised visits, and case plans for mother and father, but both failed to complete key objectives.
- Mother completed portions of parenting programs and attended visits but did not maintain stable housing or follow recommended mental-health treatment; she was living with a registered sex offender and stayed in transient housing at the time of the permanent-custody hearing.
- Father obtained stable housing and employment and completed some parenting tasks, but had sporadic attendance in mental-health, substance-abuse, and anger-management treatment and missed numerous visits; he also vacillated about which child(ren) he wanted to reunify with.
- The guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody to JFS for the two older children and either reunification with father for the youngest or permanent custody to JFS.
- The juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights and granted JFS permanent custody (Jan. 30, 2018); the parents appealed and the Sixth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether awarding permanent custody to JFS was against the manifest weight of the evidence / was in children’s best interest | Mother: court erred; she is primary caregiver and children prefer parents; relative placement (grandfather) available | JFS: parents failed to complete case plans, lack stable housing/mental-health compliance, children need permanency | Court: Affirmed—clear and convincing evidence supports best-interest finding for JFS |
| Whether mother’s cohabitation with a registered sex offender improperly drove custody decision | Mother: court relied improperly on her living with a sex offender | JFS: cohabitation was one factor among many demonstrating unsuitable housing | Court: Affirmed—cohabitation was a relevant factor but not sole basis; substantial evidence mother lacked suitable housing |
| Whether father substantially remedied conditions so children could be returned | Father: he remedied conditions (housing, employment) and negative drug screens show fitness | JFS: father failed to complete required counseling, had inconsistent visitation, and vacillated about reunification | Court: Affirmed—father remedied some issues but failed E(1)/E(4) factors (incomplete services, lack of commitment), so return not reasonably likely |
| Whether admission of two visit-summary exhibits was improper hearsay | Mother: exhibits not business records (Evid.R. 803(6)) and were inadmissible | JFS: exhibits reflected routine attendance records; cumulative to testimony | Court: Trial court erred to admit summaries as business records but error was harmless because attendance was undisputed and memorialized in testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (establishes "clear and convincing" standard for termination proceedings)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for manifest-weight-of-the-evidence review)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (2006) (availability of relative placement is one relevant factor, not dispositive, in best-interest analysis)
- State v. Davis, 116 Ohio St.3d 404 (2008) (business-records hearsay analysis and trustworthiness under Evid.R. 803(6))