In re H.M., 2011 Ohio 6376

Appellant Sheena M. gave birth to H.M. in April 2009 and Child was placed in appellee Noble County JFS custody in September 2009.
A case plan aimed at reunification was established, and a guardian ad litem was appointed; H.M. was adjudicated dependent upon appellant’s voluntary admission.
On December 10, 2010, appellee filed a motion for permanent custody; hearing held; father was unknown and did not appear.
Trial court found H.M. had been in temporary custody for at least 12 of the last 22 months and that permanent custody to appellee was in H.M.’s best interest; parental rights were terminated.
Appellant timely appealed on March 29, 2011; counsel filed a Toney brief indicating an arguable issue; no pro se brief was filed by appellant.
Trial court’s findings cited failure to comply with the case plan, lack of stable housing, unstable visits, failure to complete psychological evaluation and parenting programs, and persistent mental health concerns as support for permanent custody.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court properly grant permanent custody under best interests and duration requirements?	M. contends the decision is against the manifest weight.	Riley argues permanency with the agency is in H.M.’s best interest and statutory criteria were met.	No; the court did not abuse its discretion; permanent custody affirmed.
Was the grant supported by the case-plan compliance and related evidence?	M. failed to comply with the case plan.	Agency showed substantial noncompliance and instability affecting permanency.	Yes; the evidence supports permanent custody to appellee.

In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (Ohio 1990) (parental rights termination allowed to protect child welfare when necessary)
In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (Ohio 1985) (clear and convincing standard for best interest and permanency decisions)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard and review for arbitrariness)