2019 Ohio 2964
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Child E.A. was born in 2014 testing positive for drugs; placed in temporary custody of Warren County Children Services (WCCS). Mother had ongoing substance issues and later relapsed and ceased contact.
- Paternity was not confirmed until 2016; father (appellant) received a case plan after paternity was established.
- Father completed some assessments and had periods of visitation, but missed or cancelled multiple visits and last saw E.A. on January 27, 2017. He also failed to consistently verify housing and did not complete follow-up assessments when asked.
- WCCS moved for permanent custody on January 18, 2018. At the hearing, caseworkers testified and father testified for himself.
- The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody to WCCS was in E.A.’s best interest and that statutory grounds for permanent custody were met, including that E.A. had been in agency custody for at least 12 of 22 consecutive months. Father appealed; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (WCCS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether child could not be placed with father within a reasonable time (R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d)) | Father had not remedied conditions, failed to verify housing, and had not maintained regular contact or completed required steps, so placement was not feasible. | Father argued he completed nearly all services, that visitation lapses were due to WCCS failure to verify his home and administrative/appointment issues, and that he could obtain custody in a reasonable time. | Court held placement with father within a reasonable time was not supported; best-interest factors and father’s noncompliance supported permanent custody. |
| Whether child was abandoned by father (R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(b)) | WCCS argued father abandoned E.A. by failing to visit or communicate for over 90 days. | Father disputed abandonment, attributing lack of visits to work schedule, illness, missed communications, and cancelled appointments. | Court agreed child was abandoned (parents had not seen/contacted child for over 90 days), but treated that finding as unnecessary to disposition because the 12-of-22-months custody finding was dispositive. |
| Whether granting permanent custody was in the child’s best interest (R.C. 2151.414(D)) | WCCS argued child was bonded to foster family, needed legally secure placement, and parents were unable to meet needs. | Father argued prior compliance shows ability to parent and that obstacles to participation were excusable. | Court found by clear and convincing evidence permanent custody was in child’s best interest given custodial history, strong bond with foster family, parental nonengagement, and need for stability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (state must prove termination of parental rights by clear and convincing evidence)