In re H.S., 2019 Ohio 4334

Mother and Father (never married) are parents of three biological children (Z.M., I.M., P.S.); Mother has an older child H.S. for whom Father is the only father-figure. Parents have documented cognitive delays.
CSB removed the children for unsafe/unsanitary conditions and lack of supervision; all were adjudicated dependent and placed in temporary custody.
CSB moved for permanent custody; the juvenile court initially denied and ordered intensive, hands-on parenting instruction including the children.
On first appeal this Court reversed because CSB failed to ensure an instructor could provide hands-on training with the children present (scheduling conflict), so CSB did not provide reasonable reunification services.
On remand CSB referred parents to a hands-on program (Ohio Guidestone) and the instructor worked in-home two sessions, but CSB ceased in-home visits and moved visitation to a center after filing another permanent-custody motion, and the instructor could not attend at the center times.
The juvenile court again granted permanent custody; this appeal challenges (1) jurisdiction/time limits, (2) whether CSB provided reasonable reunification efforts, and (3) whether the award was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Issue	Father's Argument	CSB's Argument	Held
Whether juvenile court lost jurisdiction because children remained in temporary custody beyond the statutory time limit (R.C. 2151.415(D)(4))	Court lacked jurisdiction after the statutory "sunset" and must dismiss	Court retained jurisdiction after remand to resolve unresolved dispositional issues	Overruled — court retained jurisdiction; passage of sunset date did not divest jurisdiction (In re Young Children)
Whether CSB provided reasonable reunification efforts after remand (hands-on parenting instruction tailored to parents' cognitive limitations)	CSB failed to provide court-ordered, hands-on instruction with children present and created an artificial barrier by filing a new motion that ended in-home visits	CSB had referred the parents to an appropriate program and the instructor worked in-home; agency policy required moving visitation when filing a new motion	Sustained — CSB failed to make reasonable reunification efforts; reversal and remand required
Whether awarding permanent custody was against the manifest weight of the evidence	The record showed parents were improving and could have been reunified; grant of permanent custody was against manifest weight	Evidence supported CSB's position that permanent custody was warranted	Moot — court did not decide because it reversed on reunification-efforts ground

In re Young Children, 76 Ohio St.3d 632 (Ohio 1996) (holding the sunset date does not divest juvenile courts of jurisdiction to enter dispositional orders)
In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (agency must demonstrate reasonable reunification efforts before relying on the 12-of-22-months statutory basis for permanent custody)
In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (Ohio 1996) (permanent-custody test requires clear and convincing proof of statutory grounds and that custody to the agency is in the child's best interest)
In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (Ohio 1997) (termination of parental rights is akin to the "death penalty," requiring full procedural protections)