2021 Ohio 345
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Four children (oldest b. 2011; other three b. 2016 and twins 2018) were removed after FCCS found the home unsanitary with insect/vermin infestations; dependency adjudications were entered and a reunification case plan was adopted.
- Case plan required suitable housing, parenting classes, mental‑health assessment, and no contact with a convicted sex offender; parents completed services but agency and service providers reported persistent deficits.
- An extended in‑home visit with the two older children was terminated after behavioral regression and hygiene concerns; children remained in foster care.
- Psychologist testing (Wechsler) showed mild intellectual disability for both parents (IQs ~66–69) and concluded parents had limited cognitive/parenting capacity; several providers testified parents needed ongoing in‑home mentoring.
- FCCS filed for permanent custody after the children had been in agency custody for 12 of 22 months; the juvenile court denied parents’ last‑minute motions for court‑appointed GALs, found reasonable efforts were made, and granted permanent custody to FCCS.
- Parents appealed, arguing (1) R.C. 2151.281(C) is void for vagueness, (2) denial of GALs was an abuse of discretion, (3) permanent custody was not supported by clear and convincing evidence and was against the manifest weight, and (4) FCCS failed to make reasonable reunification efforts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of R.C. 2151.281(C) (GAL for parent who "appears to be mentally incompetent") | Mother: statute is void for vagueness because it lacks a definition of "mentally incompetent." | FCCS/Juvenile Ct: challenge was not raised timely in trial court; statute has workable meaning. | Court declined to address on appeal because Mother failed to raise the constitutional challenge below; assignment overruled. |
| Denial of appointment of GAL for parents under R.C. 2151.281(C) / Juv.R.4 | Parents: court abused discretion by refusing GAL despite evidence of intellectual limitations. | Juvenile Ct: parents did not appear mentally incompetent in the sense of being unable to understand/participate; counsel represented parents and protected their interests; motion untimely. | Court found no abuse of discretion: parents could participate and counsel adequately advocated; GAL denial and untimeliness upheld. |
| Sufficiency / manifest weight of evidence for permanent custody | Parents: FCCS failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence permanent custody was in children’s best interests; case plan compliance shows progress. | FCCS: children had been in custody long enough; parents’ cognitive deficits make timely reunification unlikely; foster placements promote stability and development. | Court held clear and convincing evidence supported permanent custody (12/22 months metric and R.C.2151.414(E)(2) finding that parents’ cognitive limitations prevent placement within a year); judgment not against manifest weight. |
| Reasonable efforts to reunify under R.C. 2151.419 | Parents: FCCS did not seek adequate in‑home services or other supports tailored to cognitive deficits. | FCCS/Juvenile Ct: court made repeated reasonable‑effort findings during the case; agency pursued available services; reasonable efforts do not require all possible measures. | Court held reasonable‑effort findings had been made previously and were sufficient; any claim that more services should have been sought did not warrant reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Peagler, 76 Ohio St.3d 496 (1996) (constitutional challenges generally must be raised at first opportunity in trial court).
- State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 (1986) (same principle regarding timely preservation of constitutional claims).
- In re Baby Girl Baxter, 17 Ohio St.3d 229 (1985) (statute and rule require GAL appointment when parent appears mentally incompetent).
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard defined).
- In re Thompkins, 115 Ohio St.3d 409 (2007) (parental liberty interest and standard for termination).
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (2008) (same parental‑rights protections).
- In re D.A., 113 Ohio St.3d 88 (2007) (guidance on R.C. 2151.414(E) and timelines for permanent custody).
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (reasonable‑efforts finding not required at permanent custody hearing if previously made).
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for manifest‑weight review).
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (2004) (timing rules for the 12‑of‑22‑month custody trigger).