In re: H.M.
2018 Ohio 3214
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- H.M., a child with severe developmental delays and behavioral issues, was removed from maternal grandmother Patricia Forbes’s home in April 2016 after police found intoxicated adults, unsupervised children, filth, and animal feces. Forbes was the child’s legal custodian at removal.
- PCCSB obtained emergency and then temporary custody; H.M. was placed in multiple foster homes due to behavior until July 2017 placement in a single-child foster home where she made marked improvements (off medication, speaking in full sentences, receiving therapies).
- PCCSB filed for permanent custody after >12 months in temporary custody; the guardian ad litem and agency recommended permanent custody because H.M.’s needs required intensive, stable care unlikely to be provided by Forbes or H.M.’s parents.
- Forbes sought return of custody and alleged PCCSB failed to act in good faith on reunification, retaliated by filing for permanent custody when she sought contempt, and argued that custody awards of H.M.’s siblings to Forbes showed compliance with the case plan.
- The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that H.M. could not be placed with Forbes or her parents within a reasonable time, that returning H.M. was not in her best interest, and awarded permanent custody to PCCSB; Forbes appealed claiming the award was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Forbes) | Defendant's Argument (PCCSB) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody award was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Award was contrary to evidence; Forbes had provided appropriate care for siblings and complied with her case plan | Clear-and-convincing evidence showed H.M.’s needs required legally secure placement achievable only via agency permanent custody | Affirmed: not against manifest weight; agency met burden |
| Whether PCCSB failed to make reasonable efforts / acted in bad faith toward reunification | Agency didn’t act in good faith given Forbes had legal custody pre-removal | Court and record showed repeated findings that PCCSB made reasonable efforts; Forbes did not contest those findings earlier | Held: reasonable efforts were made; bad-faith claim unsupported |
| Whether PCCSB’s motion for permanent custody was retaliatory | Agency filed permanent-custody motion the day a contempt hearing on Forbes’s motion was set, implying retaliation | Caseworker testimony denied retaliatory motive; no record evidence of retaliation | Held: retaliatory claim meritless; no supporting evidence |
| Whether Forbes’s custody of siblings proved compliance making permanent custody improper | Award of siblings to Forbes reflects compliance and capability to care for H.M. | H.M. has greater, specialized needs; sibling placements don’t establish ability to meet H.M.’s intensive, individual needs | Held: sibling placements not dispositive; H.M.’s special needs justified different outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538, 895 N.E.2d 809 (Ohio 2008) (standard that juvenile court’s permanent-custody findings must be supported by clear and convincing evidence)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 69, 120 N.E.2d 118 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- State ex rel. Miller v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 136 Ohio St.3d 350, 995 N.E.2d 1175 (Ohio 2013) (discussion of clear-and-convincing standard)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 862 N.E.2d 816 (Ohio 2007) (best-interest factors require balancing all relevant factors without assigning heightened weight to any single factor)