2022 Ohio 506
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Five children (born 2009–2019) were removed after reports of parental drug use, an overdose, and drug paraphernalia found in the home; an emergency custody order was entered December 13, 2018.
- Infant A.G. (born June 2019) tested positive for amphetamines/Suboxone at birth; FCCS obtained temporary custody September 2019.
- FCCS filed for permanent custody of the four older children October 29, 2019, and for A.G. June 29, 2020; trial occurred November 2020–February 2021.
- Parents participated in Family Recovery Court but were noncompliant: hundreds of missed or positive drug screens, multiple failed/abandoned inpatient/outpatient programs, and termination from Recovery Court July 10, 2020.
- Children maintained bonds with parents through supervised visits, but most were in potentially adoptive foster placements; guardian ad litem and caseworker recommended permanent custody.
- Juvenile court granted FCCS permanent custody April 8, 2021; parents appealed claiming due‑process/manifest‑weight error. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Parent(s)' Argument | FCCS/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the grant of permanent custody was against the manifest weight of the evidence / violated due process | K.G.: decision not supported by weight of evidence and violated due process; P.S.: judgment against manifest weight | FCCS: clear and convincing evidence supported statutory grounds and best‑interest findings (parents failed case plans; ongoing substance abuse; need for legally secure placement) | Affirmed: appellate court found competent, credible evidence showing permanent custody was in children’s best interest |
| Whether parental bond required reunification | Parents: strong parent–child bonds; H.S. initially wanted return | FCCS: bonds exist but are not dispositive where safety/permanence concerns remain; many children are bonded to adoptive placements | Held for FCCS: bond weighed against immediate reunification given parents’ failure to remedy risks |
| Whether children’s wishes under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(b) weighed against custody | P.S.: H.S. consistently wanted to return | FCCS/guardian ad litem: H.S. initially wanted return but changed; younger children too young or nonverbal; GAL recommended permanent custody | Held for FCCS: children’s wishes (and GAL’s recommendation) supported permanent custody |
| Whether parents complied with case plans and demonstrated sobriety/stability | Parents: COVID, health, transportation impeded testing and treatment; asked for more time | FCCS: parents missed kit pickup and many screens, admitted recent and ongoing drug use (including prenatal use), left treatments against medical advice, no stable income/housing improvements | Held for FCCS: parents failed to show pattern of sobriety or readiness; legally secure permanent placement required |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (clarifies manifest‑weight standard in civil cases).
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (discusses weight vs. sufficiency of the evidence).
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (defines the clear‑and‑convincing evidence standard).
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (1997) (notes the fundamental parental right and protections in termination proceedings).
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (recognizes state authority to protect children from abuse/neglect).
- In re Hitchcock, 120 Ohio App.3d 88 (8th Dist. 1996) (emphasizes child’s best interest as overriding concern in custody determinations).