2023 Ohio 4082
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background:
- Three daughters (A.G./Alice b.2016, K.G./Kelly b.2019, H.G./Holly b.2020) were removed after parents' 2019 arrests and ongoing safety/neglect concerns; Agency placed all three in the same foster home.
- Mother engaged in multi-year case plan: psychological evaluation, psychiatric treatment, counseling, and parenting classes; visitation was supervised at the Family Healing Center (FHC) and never progressed to unsupervised despite >100 visits.
- FHC and DLS reported persistent safety/skill deficits (inability to multitask, missed diaper changes, children roaming/playing in unsafe ways); Mother missed numerous visits and presented several apparently fraudulent doctors' notes; she also sent threatening emails when visitation levels were not increased.
- Grandfather (maternal) housed Mother and supported reunification but was found unsuitable as a substitute caregiver by Fairfield County and had previously allowed prohibited contact with Father and inadequate care for Holly (failure to thrive hospitalization).
- Agency moved for permanent custody after children had been in its temporary custody for at least 12 of a consecutive 22-month period; magistrate and juvenile court granted permanent custody to the Agency; Mother appealed claiming the decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues:
| Issue | Mother's Argument | Agency's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the grant of permanent custody was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Mother argued her completion of services, bond with children, stable housing plan, and supports showed she remedied conditions and could parent with protective supervision | Agency argued persistent safety concerns, inconsistent progress, credibility problems, and the children’s need for legally secure placement supported permanent custody | Court held decision was not against manifest weight; clear and convincing evidence supported permanent custody to Agency |
| Whether the statutory 12-of-22-month custody requirement was met | Mother conceded the 12-of-22 finding | Agency relied on documented custody timeline | Court found the 12-of-22 requirement satisfied (Mother conceded) |
| Whether completion of case-plan services required denying permanent custody | Mother contended completion of parenting classes, therapy, and other services showed substantial remedy of removal conditions | Agency argued completion alone does not prove conditions are remedied; observed behavior in visits and DLS/FHC evaluations showed ongoing risk | Court held case-plan completion did not overcome credible evidence of ongoing safety deficits and need for permanent placement |
| Whether Mother’s credibility and Grandfather’s suitability affected best-interest analysis | Mother argued support network and Grandfather’s assistance rendered reunification reasonable | Agency highlighted fraudulent notes, threatening emails, observers’ testimony, and prior Grandfather violations as undermining credibility and caregiver suitability | Court credited Agency concerns; credibility issues and Grandfather’s history weighed against reunification; best-interest factors favored permanent custody |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (state must prove termination of parental rights by clear and convincing evidence)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (manifest-weight standard for reviewing bench trials)
- In re K.K., 170 Ohio St.3d 149 (2022) (dispositional orders outside former 90-day limit are voidable not void)
- In re A.M., 166 Ohio St.3d 127 (2020) (two-part statutory test for awarding permanent custody)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (2006) (no single best-interest factor is controlling)