2024 Ohio 192
Ohio Ct. App.2024Background
- E.V. was born three months prematurely in July 2021 and remained in the NICU for approximately three months due to special medical needs.
- Clinton County Children Services had ongoing concerns regarding domestic violence, mental health, and home conditions involving E.V.'s parents, leading to a dependency action.
- E.V. was adjudicated dependent in September 2021; the agency received temporary custody and later moved for permanent custody after more than 12 of 22 months in care.
- Mother's engagement with the case plan for reunification was inconsistent, particularly regarding housing stability, mental health treatment, and visitation with E.V.
- At trial, evidence showed E.V.'s special needs were being met in foster care, and the foster parents expressed a desire to adopt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported permanent custody | Mother argued she addressed agency's main concerns, ended relationship, got treatment, and visits were appropriate | Agency argued persistent issues remained: inconsistent progress, visitation, and inability to meet E.V.'s needs | Trial court's decision was not against the manifest weight or sufficiency of the evidence |
| Best interests of the child | Mother argued she and E.V. were bonded, siblings were in relative custody, and loss of relationship if adopted | Agency argued stability, unmet needs, no relative placement, failed remedy of underlying issues | Grant of permanent custody was in E.V.'s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- In re G.F., 2014-Ohio-2580 (sets forth the two-part permanent custody test)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (clear and convincing evidence is required to terminate parental rights)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (standard for clear and convincing evidence in Ohio)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (standard for manifest weight review and presumption in favor of factfinder)