In re H.S.
2018 Ohio 3360
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Mother and Father appealed the juvenile court's termination of their parental rights and the grant of permanent custody to Summit County Children Services Board (CSB) for four children (three older children removed Sept 2015; fourth child removed Nov 2016).
- Primary obstacle to reunification was both parents’ limited cognitive abilities; CSB recognized this concern by March 2016 and later amended the case plan to add parenting education in August 2016.
- The trial court ordered intensive, hands-on parenting instruction (Fast Track or similar) with the children present and denied CSB’s first permanent-custody motion in May 2017, expressly requiring those services.
- CSB filed a second permanent-custody motion in July 2017; a different judge later granted permanent custody after a December 2017 hearing.
- Record shows parents consistently visited, were punctual, and children were excited to see them; however, the hands-on Fast Track parenting instruction with children present never occurred because of provider scheduling conflicts and CSB did not resolve that conflict or obtain an alternative instructor.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding CSB failed to provide reasonable reunification efforts required by the case plan and court orders, so the juvenile court lacked authority to terminate parental rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother/Father) | Defendant's Argument (CSB) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CSB made reasonable reunification efforts as required by R.C. and the case plan | Parents: CSB failed to provide court-ordered, hands-on parenting education tailored to parents’ cognitive limitations | CSB: attempted to provide Fast Track services; scheduling conflict with instructor prevented joint parent-child instruction | Held: CSB did not make reasonable reunification efforts; services required by case plan and court order were not provided |
| Whether failure to provide the mandated reunification services deprived the court of authority to terminate parental rights | Parents: termination improper because statutory reunification duty unmet | CSB: termination appropriate based on other statutory grounds and child welfare evidence | Held: Because reunification efforts were inadequate, trial court lacked authority to terminate parental rights; reversal required |
| Whether the case plan timely addressed parents’ cognitive deficits | Parents: case plan was delayed and insufficiently tailored; amendment to add parenting services came nearly one year after removal | CSB: case plan was amended and services arranged (Fast Track) | Held: Amendment came late and implementation failed; planning and execution inadequate given known cognitive deficits |
| Whether the “12 of 22 months” ground was properly applied to the newborn (P.S.) | Parents: CSB improperly relied on 12-of-22 for P.S., who had not been in custody 12 months when motion filed | CSB: maintained 12-of-22 ground for all children (but did not allege 12-of-22 as to P.S.) | Held: Majority focused on reunification failure; noted obvious error as to P.S. (12-of-22 not present when motion filed) but resolved case on reunification ground; concurrence would have found 12-of-22 problem outcome determinative |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (agency must make reasonable efforts to reunify before seeking termination; if not shown beforehand, agency must demonstrate efforts at permanent-custody hearing)
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (2004) (timing rules for calculating custody-length grounds for permanent custody)
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (1997) (termination of parental rights requires full procedural and substantive protections)
- In re Smith, 77 Ohio App.3d 1 (6th Dist.) (discussing procedural protections in parental-termination proceedings)