In re E.W.
2017 Ohio 7215
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Children E.W. and C.I. were placed in temporary custody of Warren County Children Services (WCCS) on Aug. 5, 2015 after parents were arrested for drug-related offenses and children were found in unsafe conditions; children later adjudicated neglected/dependent.
- WCCS filed for permanent custody on Aug. 9, 2016, alleging parents could not or should not have the children returned within a reasonable time; trial occurred Nov. 9, 2016.
- Mother and E.W.'s Father have long histories of substance abuse with multiple positive drug tests, intermittent treatment, relapses, incarcerations, unstable housing/employment, and inconsistent cooperation with case plans.
- C.I.’s Father was found to have abandoned C.I.; he had minimal contact and was removed from the case plan.
- Children’s placements: E.W. was thriving in foster care; C.I. remained in a residential treatment facility. CASA reported the children wished to live with Mother but recommended an extension; WCCS recommended permanent custody for adoption stability.
- Juvenile court denied parents’ requests for continuance/extension, found WCCS made reasonable case-planning efforts, and awarded WCCS permanent custody by clear and convincing evidence; appellants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of continuance of permanent-custody trial | Father (and Mother) argued continuance necessary so Father could be transported from facility and Mother could continue rehab | WCCS argued continuation would exceed statutory deadlines and delay permanency; court scheduling and parties ultimately prepared to proceed | Court did not abuse discretion; continuance denied given statutory timelines and lack of imperative need |
| Request for six-month extension of temporary custody to complete case plans | Parents sought extra time to complete treatment and aftercare and to reunify | WCCS contended parents had lengthy history of noncompliance, relapses, and would not remedy conditions in reasonable time; permanency needed for children | Court denied extension; parents had reasonable, not indefinite, time and evidence showed unlikely reunification within a reasonable period |
| Whether evidence supported permanent custody by clear and convincing evidence (best-interests test) | Mother argued decision was against manifest weight and not supported by clear and convincing evidence; stressed love, visitation, and ongoing treatment efforts | WCCS showed repeated drug use, failure to complete case plans, incarcerations, lack of stable housing/employment, and the children’s need for legally secure placement | Court held clear and convincing evidence supported award of permanent custody to WCCS under R.C. 2151.414; best-interest factors favored permanency for adoption |
| Finding C.I.’s Father abandoned child | Mother (implicitly) and Father contested scope; C.I.’s Father alleged absent | WCCS showed C.I.’s Father had no contact with agency, Mother, or child and failed to participate in case plan | Court found C.I.’s Father abandoned C.I. under R.C. 2151.011(C) and removed him from case plan |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (clear-and-convincing standard required before terminating parental rights)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (parental right to custody is fundamental but not absolute)
- Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (parental rights recognized as fundamental liberties)
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (Ohio Supreme Court discussion of limits on parental rights and state authority to remove children)
- State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (standard for reviewing trial-court continuance requests)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)