In re E.F.
2016 Ohio 7265
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Appellant Mother C.F. appeals a juvenile court decision granting permanent custody of five children to Clinton County Children Services.
- Children are H.F. (2001), Em.F. (2004), El.F. (2006), S.F. (2008), and L.R. (2012).
- Agency first became involved in 2010 after a sibling tested positive for marijuana at birth and drugs were found in the home.
- From 2011–2014 the children were removed from parental care; temporary custody and protective supervision were repeatedly extended; Father’s conduct is separate from this appeal.
- Mother engaged with case plans intermittently, completed some drug treatment, but tested positive multiple times and faced incarceration during the proceedings.
- In 2015–2016 the Agency moved for permanent custody; the court found the children had been in Agency custody for 12 of 22 months and granted permanent custody; Mother’s abandonment finding was later deemed erroneous, but another basis supported the result.
- Judgment affirmed as modified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abandonment finding improper | Mother lacked evidence of >90 days without contact. | Agency relied on abandonment but the record shows no 90-day gap for Mother. | Abandonment finding reversed; alternative ground supports permanent custody. |
| Best interests support permanent custody | Mother’s reforms show future ability to reunify; relatives show interest. | Court should favor stability and permanency despite possible relative options. | Permanent custody to Agency is supported and not against the manifest weight. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (clear-and-convincing standard for permanent custody standards)
- In re J.H., 2016-Ohio-640 (12th Dist. Clinton (2016)) (appellate review limited to sufficiency of evidence for permanent custody)
- In re J.N., 2006-Ohio-2557 (9th Dist. Summit (2006)) (abandonment error does not negate 12-of-22 ground)
- In re A.M.L., 2013-Ohio-2277 (12th Dist. Butler (2013)) (reasonable time to remedy, not indefinite patience)
- In re S.S., 2011-Ohio-5697 (2d Dist. Miami (2011)) (best interests considered with stability and permanency)