In re E.-J. Children
2019 Ohio 1519
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Mother has a long history with child-services: prior involuntary termination of parental rights in Iowa (2008) and earlier child-death in Illinois (2000); recurring concerns for domestic violence, substance abuse, and mental-health issues.
- HCJFS first removed child I.E.-J. in 2013 after a domestic-violence incident; later returned under protective supervision; diagnostic assessments identified mother with antisocial personality disorder and prior service refusals.
- In July 2016 mother’s infant C.E. sustained a catastrophic brain injury; HCJFS obtained interim custody while cause was unclear; mother reported a .09 BAC the night of the hospital visit.
- Between 2016–2017 mother repeatedly missed or refused drug testing and declined offered services (hair-follicle test, parenting evaluation); mother was arrested in Kentucky (DUI/open container) and left I.E.-J. with an unapproved caretaker.
- Juvenile magistrate initially denied permanent custody for both children (temporary custody for C.E. to allow placement at a long-term facility); juvenile court sustained HCJFS objections as to I.E.-J. and awarded permanent custody to HCJFS for both children in a single entry.
- Appellate court found the permanent-custody award for C.E. to be a clerical/error or, if not, legally improper given C.E.’s placement at a long-term care facility with mother’s consent; affirmed permanent custody for I.E.-J. based on clear-and-convincing evidence (parental history, missed services/tests, prior terminations, and harm/abandonment concerns).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (HCJFS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile court erred by awarding permanent custody of C.E. to HCJFS | Permanent custody was improper because C.E. is appropriately placed at a long-term care facility and mother consented to that placement; temporary custody suffices | Permanent custody was necessary to secure C.E.’s placement and permanency | Reversed as to C.E.; entry treated as clerical error and court remanded to award temporary custody to HCJFS (or correct entry) |
| Whether adjudication of I.E.-J. as dependent was plain-error | Adjudication erroneous (mother challenges dependency finding) | Dependency supported by mother leaving child without adequate care during arrest and inability to contact or arrange care | No plain error; dependency affirmed (clear-and-convincing evidence supported) |
| Whether awarding permanent custody of I.E.-J. was supported by clear-and-convincing evidence | Mother argued strong bond, child’s preference, and poor adjustment to foster care favored return under protective supervision | HCJFS pointed to prior involuntary termination, repeated removals, missed/ refused drug testing/services, and instances of neglect/abandonment | Affirmed: permanent custody of I.E.-J. to HCJFS is supported by clear-and-convincing evidence and is in child’s best interest |
| Whether factors under R.C. 2151.414(E) and (D) were met | Mother disputed that statutory factors warranted permanent custody given bonding and child’s wishes | HCJFS relied on E(1), E(11) and D(1) factors: abandonment, prior termination as to siblings, failure to complete services, risk from substance use and history | Court found statutory factors satisfied as to I.E.-J.; permanent custody appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538, 2008-Ohio-4825, 895 N.E.2d 809 (clear-and-convincing standard for permanent custody)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (definition of clear-and-convincing evidence)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 679 N.E.2d 1099 (plain-error standard in civil cases)
- State v. Morgan, 153 Ohio St.3d 196, 2017-Ohio-7565, 103 N.E.3d 784 (limits on applying plain error in civil proceedings)
- In re Etter, 134 Ohio App.3d 484, 631 N.E.2d 694 (standard for appellate review when no objection to magistrate’s finding)