2020 Ohio 1120
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Children (including G.A., b. 2007) were removed in Sept. 2015 after mother was arrested for child endangering and domestic violence; siblings bore multiple scars and mother had documented mental‑health diagnoses.
- Mother pled guilty to child endangering and domestic violence and was incarcerated ~May 2016–Mar 2018; CCDCFS obtained temporary custody March 2016 and moved for permanent custody in June 2016.
- Mother completed parenting/anger‑management classes (some in prison) but had limited contact while incarcerated and thereafter because of a no‑contact order and parole restrictions; she was released early in March 2018 and sought to reengage services and visitation.
- G.A. exhibited significant mental‑health and behavioral issues (PTSD, bipolar, sexualized behavior) and had undergone multiple placements (≈4); siblings also had serious needs and stable foster placement options were limited.
- The guardian ad litem and agency largely recommended permanent custody (GAL suggested possible legal custody to mother for G.A. with supervision but later reserved), and the juvenile court found statutory (E) factors and granted permanent custody to CCDCFS.
- The court concluded R.C. 2151.414(D)(2) applied (one or more E factors present; child in agency custody >2 years; not eligible for PPLA; no relative motion), making permanent custody mandatory.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | Agency's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court erred in granting permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) (best‑interest) | Mother argued the agency failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in G.A.’s best interest — she completed programs, sought housing and SSI, resumed visits, and G.A. sometimes wanted reunification. | Agency argued child’s long custody history, multiple placements, serious mental‑health/behavioral needs, mother’s unstable housing/income, lack of sustained family therapy, and criminal history made reunification unreasonable. | Affirmed. Court found (D)(2) mandated permanent custody; alternatively, (D)(1) best‑interest factors were supported by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Whether R.C. 2151.414(E) factors support the (D)(2) finding (esp. E(6), E(7), E(10)) | Mother contended her child‑endangering conviction (R.C. 2919.22(B)(3)) does not trigger E(6) or E(7), and incarceration/no‑contact order prevents treating her absence as abandonment under E(10). | Agency pointed to mother’s domestic violence conviction (R.C. 2919.25) as falling within E(6); also relied on evidence of lack of commitment, prior loss of custody, ongoing parole and unstable housing. | Held: E(6) applied because of the domestic violence conviction; E(7) and E(10) did not apply as pleaded, but other (E) factors and the statutory (D)(2) requirements were met. |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (recognition of parental fundamental interest in childrearing)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (Ohio recognition of parental rights and limits)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (parental rights subordinate to child welfare)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (no single best‑interest factor controls)
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (review standard for permanent custody)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (statutory framework for terminating parental rights)