2022 Ohio 1190
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Mother and Father had three children: Ev.H. (b. 2018), El.H. (b. 2019), and C.H. (b. 2021). Children were removed after reports of domestic violence, unsafe/unsanitary home conditions, and parental substance use; Mother and Father admitted marijuana use and had criminal histories.
- PCDJFS obtained temporary custody of the children (different files) after incidents including a contaminated urine substitution, positive drug tests, and prenatal positive tests for amphetamines/methamphetamines.
- Parents were placed on a case plan (random drug screens, parenting, DV classes, substance‑use and psychological assessments); both completed some services but had inconsistent engagement and positive/failed drug screens.
- At the August 2021 permanent‑custody hearing, children were placed in kinship/foster homes, bonded to caregivers, and caretakers expressed willingness to adopt. Juvenile court granted permanent custody to PCDJFS, finding parents had not substantially remedied removal conditions and permanent custody was in the children’s best interests.
- On appeal Mother challenged (1) sufficiency of clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody was in the children’s best interests, and (2) the finding that she had not substantially remedied removal conditions. The appellate court affirmed the E(1) finding (parents failed to remedy) but reversed and remanded as to best interests because the juvenile court record lacked any reliable evidence of the children’s wishes (R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(b)) and missing CASA reports.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | PCDJFS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parents substantially remedied conditions that led to removal (R.C. 2151.414(E)(1)) | Mother: she completed most case‑plan tasks; "substantial" remedy (not perfection) was achieved | Agency: primary concerns (ongoing substance use, unstable housing/finances, mental‑health issues) persisted; deceptive/failed drug screens | Held: Agency proved E(1); parents had not substantially remedied conditions — assignment overruled (finding affirmed) |
| Whether permanent custody is in children’s best interests (R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)) | Mother: Agency failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence; parent‑child interaction and potential for reunification weigh against termination | Agency: children are bonded to current caregivers, need stability/permanency, foster/kinship placements ready for adoption | Held: Reversed in part — juvenile court failed to show it considered the children’s wishes (D(1)(b)); remanded for the limited purpose of obtaining/considering children’s wishes (CASA reports/hearing) |
| Whether the juvenile court satisfied its duty to consider statutory best‑interest factors (In re A.M. guidance) | Mother: court did not meaningfully apply each D(1) factor, particularly children’s wishes | Agency: court relied on reports, CASA, and factual findings showing bonds and need for permanency | Held: Court considered most factors but record lacked evidence on D(1)(b); appellate court ordered CASA reports filed and a hearing if necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (clear‑and‑convincing standard required before terminating parental rights)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (standard for manifest‑weight review; appellate court defers to factfinder unless record shows miscarriage of justice)