In re F.W.
2017 Ohio 5624
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mother and Father are parents of four children removed in Aug 2015 after allegations of domestic violence, drug use/manufacturing, filthy home conditions, and child endangering; parents waived adjudication and the children were adjudicated abused/dependent.
- Children were initially placed with a maternal aunt, then moved to various relative and foster placements; CSB later moved for permanent custody of all four children.
- Father had prior involuntary termination of parental rights to older children and made no meaningful effort to comply with his case plan; Mother had child-endangering convictions (2015), intermittent engagement with services, incarceration for probation violations, inconsistent drug testing, and unstable housing.
- Evidence showed sexualized and violent behaviors by the children, disclosures of sexual abuse by Father (with Mother’s alleged participation/tolerance), and ongoing behavioral and special-needs issues that improved in foster/relative placements.
- The juvenile court found (1) children could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time and (2) permanent custody to CSB was in the children’s best interests; trial court’s grant of permanent custody was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the statutory first prong for permanent custody (child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time) was proven by clear and convincing evidence | Mother contends she substantially complied with the case plan and could reunify given more time | Father contends Mother could reunify with more time and thus permanent custody was premature | Court held CSB met its burden under R.C. 2151.414(E): multiple statutory factors supported that the children could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time (Mother’s instability, ongoing substance use, failure to remedy conditions; Father’s prior terminations and noncompliance) |
| Whether permanent custody to CSB was in the children’s best interests under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) | Mother argues best-interest factors did not favor termination because of partial compliance and potential for reunification | Father argues similarly that Mother’s future reunification would serve children’s interests | Court held the best-interest factors (interaction/relationships, custodial history, need for permanence, children’s safety and improvement in placements, GAL recommendation) supported permanent custody to CSB |
| Whether the juvenile court’s findings were against the manifest weight or legally insufficient | Mother and Father argue the evidence was insufficient and the verdict was against the manifest weight | CSB argues evidence was clear and convincing and the juvenile court’s credibility determinations should be upheld | Court held evidence was legally sufficient and not against the manifest weight; appellate court deferred to trial court’s factfinding and credibility determinations |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest-weight standards and sets standard for appellate review of juvenile custody findings)
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (1996) (explains two-prong permanent custody test under R.C. 2151.414)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (1985) (defines "clear and convincing evidence")
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (discusses legal sufficiency standard)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (provides classic definition of clear-and-convincing evidence standard)