2020 Ohio 3807
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- CCDCFS obtained emergency custody of E.C., A.C., and Al.C. on May 21, 2018, after alleging mother suffered from severe mental‑health issues, substance abuse, inadequate housing, and unsafe parenting; the children were placed with an aunt and later with an uncle.
- Mother received a reunification case plan (housing, mental‑health treatment, substance‑abuse treatment, parenting); she completed parenting supports but largely failed to engage in recommended mental‑health and substance‑abuse treatment and had multiple positive drug tests.
- CCDCFS moved to convert temporary custody to permanent custody on May 21, 2019; the GAL recommended permanent custody to CCDCFS with a plan to place the children for adoption with the aunt and her husband in Florida.
- At a December 2019 permanent‑custody hearing, testimony showed the children had been in agency custody for 12+ consecutive months, were bonded to aunt, and mother had only recently begun but not completed treatment and sobriety efforts.
- The juvenile court granted permanent custody to CCDCFS, finding R.C. 2151.414(E)(1),(2),(4),(14) applicable and that permanent custody was in the children’s best interest; mother appealed alleging insufficiency of evidence and ICWA violations.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | CCDCFS / Juvenile Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether children cannot or should not be placed with mother within a reasonable time (R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) and E factors) | Mother: CCDCFS failed to prove any E factor by clear and convincing evidence; she had housing and attended visits. | Mother repeatedly failed to remediate mental‑health and substance‑abuse problems; multiple positive drug tests; did not complete recommended treatment; therefore E(1) and E(2) apply. | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supports E(1) and E(2); children could not/should not be returned to mother within a reasonable time. |
| Whether permanent custody was in the children’s best interest (R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)) | Mother: argued court erred in weighing E factors and did not show best interest. | Children had been in agency custody 12+ months; bonded to aunt who was willing/able to adopt; permanency required. | Affirmed: best interest satisfied, including D(1)(c) (12+ months in agency custody); placement with aunt appropriate. |
| Whether the court erred under ICWA by failing to treat the children as Indian children | Mother: she disclosed Native ancestry (great‑grandmother Blackfoot); court should have investigated further, treated the children as Indian, and applied ICWA’s heightened standards (including expert testimony / beyond‑reasonable‑doubt). | Court: ancestry alone does not give “reason to know” under ICWA/regulations; court asked mother at outset; mother (who asserted applicability) failed to prove child is an "Indian child"; no triggered ICWA duties. | Affirmed: mother waived all but plain error; no "reason to know" under 25 C.F.R. 23.107(c); ICWA did not apply; CCDCFS need not treat the children as Indian children. |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parents have fundamental right to rear their children)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (1990) (parental rights are fundamental but not absolute)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (framework for termination of parental rights under state law)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (1979) (welfare of the child governs parental‑rights termination)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1959) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997) (plain‑error waiver principles in civil appeals)