In re H.M.
2018 Ohio 989
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Mother (R.B.) and Father had five children removed after reports Father threatened harm; GCCS obtained interim custody March–June 2015 and temporary custody was entered October 27, 2015.
- GCCS created a case plan for reunification; key requirements included psychological/parenting assessments, domestic-violence classes, stable housing, and attending children’s appointments.
- GCCS filed for permanent custody on June 21, 2016; hearings occurred late 2016 and July 2017; juvenile court granted GCCS permanent custody and terminated parental rights of both parents.
- Mother appealed solely arguing (1) the “12 of 22 months” statutory requirement was not met and (2) GCCS failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody was in the children’s best interests.
- Trial evidence: children had formed strong bonds with foster family (who sought to adopt); foster parents reported children’s functioning improved in foster care; Mother was passive during supervised visits, had not attended children’s medical/education appointments, refused to provide stable housing information, and had longstanding untreated mental-health/personality disorder issues per psychological evaluations.
- The juvenile court found R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) satisfied (children in custody >12 consecutive months when motion filed) and that permanent custody was in the children’s best interests; this court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (GCCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GCCS satisfied the “12 of 22 months” requirement in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) | The 12-month period must fall within a consecutive 22-month span after agency involvement began; such a 22-month window had not elapsed, so GCCS could not rely on (B)(1)(d). | Agency need only show the child was in its continuous custody for at least 12 months when the motion was filed; here each child had been in custody >12 consecutive months. | Court held (B)(1)(d) satisfied: children were in GCCS custody for over 12 consecutive months when the motion was filed. |
| Whether granting permanent custody to GCCS was in the children’s best interest (clear and convincing standard) | Mother contends GCCS failed to prove permanent custody was in the children’s best interests. | GCCS pointed to children’s attachment to foster family, adoptability, Mother’s lack of stable housing, limited visitation/engagement, and unresolved serious mental-health and parenting deficiencies. | Court held competent, credible evidence supported a firm belief that awarding permanent custody to GCCS was in the children’s best interest; affirming termination of parental rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163, 818 N.E.2d 1176 (Ohio 2004) (interpreting the purpose of the “12 of 22 months” rule and protections afforded parents in permanent-custody proceedings)
- Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (Ohio 1984) (trial court best positioned to judge witness credibility and weigh evidence)