2023 Ohio 643
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- CCDJFS removed Gia (5 months), John (2), and Joshua (3) in Feb–Apr 2020 after police discovered suspected meth and Mother had untreated mental‑health issues and recent domestic‑violence incidents; children were placed with a foster family and adjudicated dependent.
- CCDJFS implemented a reunification case plan requiring mental‑health and substance‑abuse treatment, stable housing, and consistent visitation; Mother made minimal progress and repeatedly missed visits.
- Mother had multiple incarcerations in Ohio and Mississippi (including Apr 2021–Feb 2022 with no contact), and CCDJFS obtained two temporary‑custody extensions; CCDJFS moved for permanent custody on Feb 1, 2022.
- Foster mother testified the children are bonded to the foster family, have behavioral/medical needs (therapy, sleep/GI/psychiatric treatment), and that she intends to adopt; the guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody.
- At trial Mother conceded the “12 of 22” custody and abandonment findings but argued permanent custody was not in the children’s best interests; the magistrate and juvenile court granted permanent custody to CCDJFS, and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | CCDJFS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether terminating Mother’s parental rights was supported by clear and convincing evidence / in children’s best interests under R.C. 2151.414(D) | Mother argued the court gave improper weight to certain best‑interest factors and that her bond and recent sobriety warranted reunification or more time | CCDJFS argued Mother lacked stability (housing, sobriety, compliance), had abandoned the children, and could not meet the children’s medical/behavioral needs; foster placement provided permanency | Affirmed: court found clear and convincing evidence permanent custody was in children’s best interests; 12‑of‑22 and abandonment prongs satisfied; mother’s progress was too recent/speculative |
Key Cases Cited
- No authorities with official reporter citations were relied on in the opinion; the decision primarily cites Ohio appellate slip opinions and R.C. statutory provisions governing the two‑part permanent‑custody test and best‑interest factors.