2020 Ohio 3220
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- G.B. (b. Jan. 6, 2016) was removed in Nov. 2017 after Mother arrived at a hospital appearing intoxicated with G.B. in a soaking stroller; LCCS filed a neglect/dependency complaint and obtained temporary custody.
- Parents have extensive prior child-welfare history: older children were removed earlier (one in permanent custody, one in legal custody of paternal grandmother); prior agency involvement for substance abuse and parenting concerns.
- Case plan required both parents to address substance abuse, mental health, and basic-needs issues; Mother also required parenting services and had a psychological evaluation showing a composite IQ of 64 and significant cognitive deficits.
- During the case G.B. lived primarily in a foster home, developed a strong bond with foster parents who wish to adopt; parents’ visitation was inconsistent and their engagement at visits was limited.
- LCCS moved for permanent custody after G.B. had been in agency temporary custody for at least 12 of the prior 22 months; after a six-day hearing the juvenile court granted permanent custody to LCCS and terminated parental rights.
- The Ninth District affirmed: it found the 12-of-22-month statutory ground satisfied and concluded awarding permanent custody was in G.B.’s best interest; one judge dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the best-interest finding was supported by clear and convincing evidence | Mother: court erred; best-interest finding not supported by clear and convincing evidence | LCCS: parents lacked understanding of substance/cognitive issues, failed to prioritize child; foster placement provides permanence | Held: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supported best interest (court weighed custodial history, interactions, need for permanence) |
| Whether the statutory first prong (ability to place child with parent) was met | Father: trial court abused discretion/manifest-weight error; challenged application of R.C. 2151.414(E) factors | LCCS: alternative ground applies — child was in temporary custody 12+ of 22 months | Held: Affirmed — first prong satisfied under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) (12-of-22-months), so court need not reach R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) analysis |
| Whether LCCS used reasonable efforts / failure to refer Mother to county developmental disabilities board | Mother: agency should have referred to LCBDD; lack of referral shows unreasonable efforts | LCCS: reasonable efforts were made; prior reasonable-efforts findings were stipulated and not objected to | Held: Affirmed — parents forfeited contest to reasonable-efforts findings by stipulation; plain-error claim failed (no prejudice shown) |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179 (Ohio 2012) (standard for manifest-weight review and deference to factfinder)
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (Ohio 1996) (permanent-custody statutory framework)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (Ohio 1985) (clear-and-convincing standard defined)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 2007-Ohio-1104 (Ohio 2007) (reasonable-efforts determination timing at permanent-custody hearing)