2023 Ohio 3018
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Mother Heather Duche has two children at issue (born 2011 and 2012); children were removed in November 2020 after dependency complaints and adjudicated dependent; temporary custody to Portage County Department of Job and Family Services (PCDJFS).
- PCDJFS filed for permanent custody on November 10, 2022; trial court found the statutory 22‑month custody prong satisfied and granted permanent custody to PCDJFS on April 24, 2023.
- Case plan requirements included substance‑abuse and mental health assessments/treatment, parenting class, random drug screens, employment, and stable housing; Duche had past positive methamphetamine tests in 2021 but testified she stopped using in 2019 and last positive in March 2022.
- Evidence at trial: Duche maintained consistent supervised visitation, obtained full‑time employment (assistant manager), secured housing by February 2023, had a long run of negative drug screens (21 negatives at Compass), but missed/ceased some counseling and did not complete a parenting program per some caseworkers; guardian ad litem recommended termination.
- Trial court terminated parental rights based on statutory custody period and best‑interest findings (lack of consistent engagement, incomplete case plan, recent housing, inconsistent drug screens and counseling).
- The appellate majority reversed, holding the record lacked clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the children’s best interests; dissent would have affirmed under a deferential manifest‑weight standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Duche) | Defendant's Argument (PCDJFS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination of Duche’s parental rights was supported by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the children’s best interests | Duche substantially complied with case plan goals relevant to safety: consistent visitation, sustained employment, appropriate housing, negative drug screens for over a year, and strong parent–child bonds; thus termination is not in children’s best interests | Duche failed to complete key case‑plan components (parenting class, consistent counseling, timely/consistent drug testing), had prior positive methamphetamine tests and history of abandonment/parenting issues; children had been in agency custody the statutory period | Reversed: appellate majority held the evidence did not meet the clear‑and‑convincing standard on best interests and therefore termination was not supported; costs taxed to appellee |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 481 N.E.2d 613 (Ohio 1985) (clarifies clear and convincing evidence standard)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 972 N.E.2d 517 (Ohio 2012) (describes manifest‑weight standard and appellate review principles)
- State v. Hoffman, 776 N.E.2d 485 (Ohio 2002) (quotation describing termination of parental rights as family‑law equivalent of the death penalty)
- In re Hayes, 679 N.E.2d 680 (Ohio 1997) (parental rights are fundamental but subject to child’s welfare)
- Cunningham v. Cunningham, 391 N.E.2d 1034 (Ohio 1979) (parental rights subject to ultimate welfare of child)
- In re Z.C., 203 N.E.3d 730 (Ohio 2023) (noting conflict on appellate standard of review in permanent custody cases)