2022 Ohio 1275
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Three children (born 2018, 2019, 2021) were removed after PCDJFS received reports of unsafe home conditions and parental substance abuse; temporary custody orders were entered and case plans imposed.
- Father completed some services (parenting, anger management, evaluations) while in the MonDay program but had intermittent sobriety, positive drug/alcohol tests in 2021, and instances of submitting fraudulent urine samples.
- Children were placed long‑term: one in kinship care (nearly two years) and two together in foster care (since infancy); caretakers wished to adopt.
- PCDJFS filed complaints in June 2021 seeking permanent custody as the original dispositional order; a permanent‑custody hearing occurred in August 2021.
- Juvenile court granted permanent custody to the agency, finding parents had not substantially remedied conditions (primarily substance abuse) and that permanent custody was in the children’s best interests. Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Father's Argument | Agency's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaints relied on outdated/unproven allegations such that permanent custody was improper | Complaints cited stale allegations (domestic violence, home cleanliness) not proved at hearing; agency failed to show problems persisted | Complaints included recent allegations and evidence (2021 positive tests, relapses); primary ongoing concern was substance abuse | Court distinguished In re D.M., found agency presented recent, relevant evidence; overruled first assignment of error |
| Whether granting permanent custody was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Father argued he substantially remedied conditions by completing case‑plan services | Agency relied on continuing substance abuse, inconsistent treatment compliance, positive tests, and fraudulent samples; children’s stability in placements favors permanency | Court found clear‑and‑convincing evidence supporting R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) (parents hadn’t remedied substance abuse) and affirmed that part; however, court reversed in part because juvenile court failed to show it considered children’s wishes under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(b) and remanded for consideration of children's wishes/CASA reports |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (agency must prove termination of parental rights by clear and convincing evidence)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (standard for manifest‑weight review)
- In re A.M., 2020-Ohio-5102 (Ohio 2020) (juvenile court must demonstrate the record allows a reviewing court to discern that statutorily enumerated best‑interest factors were considered)