2019 Ohio 3721
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Parents Joel and Rachel appealed the juvenile court's September 11, 2018 orders awarding Logan County Children’s Services (LCCS) permanent custody of their daughters H.M. (b. 2003) and S.M. (b. 2005; cerebral palsy, trust fund).
- S.M. was removed after missed medical/therapy appointments and care concerns; H.M. was removed after disclosures of sexual abuse by older brothers; both were adjudicated dependent by stipulation and placed in foster care.
- The parents were described as uncooperative, late to engage in ordered services, and—per evaluations—had significant mental-health and personality issues that limited parenting capacity; Joel was found especially resistant to professional recommendations.
- The children were in LCCS temporary custody for more than 12 of a consecutive 22 months; foster placements provided substantial medical/therapeutic progress for S.M. and stability for H.M.
- LCCS moved for permanent custody March 16, 2018; after a multi-day hearing over several months, the juvenile court granted permanent custody to LCCS, and both parents appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody award was against manifest weight / insufficient evidence | Rachel/Joel: evidence did not clearly and convincingly establish permanency was in children’s best interests | State/LCCS: children had been in agency custody >12 of 22 months and were thriving in placement; parents had not remedied risks | Court: affirmed; findings supported by record and witness credibility; best-interest factors met |
| Whether LCCS made reasonable efforts to prevent removal/achieve reunification | Parents: LCCS failed to provide or timely implement reunification supports | LCCS: extensive services, transportation, referrals, and efforts were provided; delays were often due to parents’ late engagement | Court: affirmed reasonable-efforts findings (made throughout case and at final entry) |
| Whether GAL/CASA violated duties (Sup.R.48 / R.C.2151.281) and prejudiced parents | Parents: GALs failed to observe visitations and did inadequate investigations, violating rules and due process | GALs: substantial investigation occurred (initial GAL extensive); successors divided work and produced reports; court received other evidence of parent–child interaction | Court: found some Sup.R.48 noncompliance but no prejudice; substantial compliance and other evidence cured any deficiency |
| Whether agency/trial court infringed parents’ free-exercise rights | Parents: case plan goals and criticisms improperly penalized their religious/family practices | LCCS: interventions targeted child safety and practical caregiving (transportation, medical compliance); protecting children from abuse is compelling | Court: no unconstitutional infringement; any intrusion justified by child-protective interests |
| Whether trial court should have dismissed under the “Sunset Date” (In re Young) | Rachel: agency failed to complete case within statutory two‑year/termination timeline | LCCS: permanent-custody motions were timely filed and the hearing proceeded within statutory allowances | Court: In re Young inapplicable (that case involved no motion filed); trial complied with timing rules; denial affirmed |
| Whether Rachel received ineffective assistance of counsel | Rachel: late appointment of counsel and allegedly weak cross-examination prejudiced outcome | State: record shows no demonstrated deficiency or prejudice from counsel’s performance | Court: no Strickland violation; appellant failed to show deficient performance or prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (recognizing parental custody as a fundamental liberty interest)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (clear-and-convincing standard required for termination of parental rights)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (standards for reviewing manifest-weight challenges)
- In re Young, 76 Ohio St.3d 632 (discussing agency timing / “Sunset” context)
- State v. Schmidt, 29 Ohio St.3d 32 (three-part analysis for free exercise balancing)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (deference to trial court on credibility in custody contexts)