In re H.J.
104 N.E.3d 51
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- H.J. was taken into emergency temporary custody by Ashtabula County Children Services Board (ACCSB) six days after birth (Apr. 2016); dependency adjudication followed.
- Mother had positive marijuana test at birth, history of substance abuse, unstable housing, and did not complete case-plan requirements.
- Father (Appellant Joshua Javis) was present at birth but failed to establish paternity promptly, missed hearings, and had no contact with H.J. after summer 2016.
- Javis experienced repeated hospitalizations for mental illness and multiple incarcerations during the case; he later entered prison in May 2017 and began participating in programs there.
- ACCSB moved for permanent custody (Jan. 2017); after a hearing the juvenile court granted permanent custody to ACCSB (Aug. 2017).
- Trial court found abandonment under R.C. 2151.011(C) (no contact for >90 days) and concluded permanent custody was in the child’s best interest; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (ACCSB) | Defendant's Argument (Javis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether father abandoned the child under R.C. 2151.011(C) | Father failed to visit or maintain contact >90 days, so statutory presumption of abandonment applies | Lack of contact was beyond his control due to hospitalizations and incarcerations | Court held abandonment established: Javis had no contact since summer 2016 and made no efforts to engage the agency or seek visitation |
| Whether permanent custody was in child’s best interest under R.C. 2151.414(D) | Child needs a legally secure, permanent placement; foster home suitable and willing to adopt | Father argued improved stability in prison and desire to parent; insufficient state evidence | Court found by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody served child’s best interests |
| Whether evidentiary insufficiency/manifest weight supports reversal | ACCSB relied on caseworker, GAL, and custodial-history evidence showing failures by parents | Javis claimed the State presented little evidence and his circumstances justified leniency | Court affirmed: evidence (custodial history, lack of paternity/visitation, foster placement, parents’ failures) supported the judgment |
| Admissibility/impact of father’s mental health/incarceration on abandonment finding | Agency argued incapacity/incarceration did not excuse failure to maintain contact or attempt to participate in case | Javis argued hospitalizations and jail prevented contact and visitation | Court held incapacity/incarceration did not negate statutory abandonment where father made no positive efforts to maintain contact or work through case system |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.W., 818 N.E.2d 1176 (Ohio 2004) (statutory framework for granting permanent custody to public children services agency)
- In re K.H., 895 N.E.2d 809 (Ohio 2008) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 972 N.E.2d 517 (Ohio 2012) (standard for reviewing manifest-weight challenges)
- Cross v. Ledford, 120 N.E.2d 118 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear and convincing standard)