In re H.W.
2015 Ohio 3018
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Mother (Heather G.) has four children; only infant H.W. (b. July 13, 2013) is at issue. H.W. was removed from Mother’s custody three days after birth and placed with a foster mother who had adopted Mother’s older children.
- CSB had prior involvement: Mother previously lost custody of two older children (D.G. and J.G.) after multi-year reunification efforts and eventual surrender/adoption by the same foster mother.
- CSB raised concerns about Mother’s severe cognitive impairments (full‑scale IQ 67; functions at ~8–9 year old level), low literacy/numeracy, mental‑health diagnosis (dependent personality disorder), history of criminal involvement with a partner, and lack of adequate family or community support.
- Mother completed parenting classes and participated in reunification services; CSB and the magistrate previously found those reunification efforts reasonable, and Mother did not timely object to that finding on appeal.
- At the permanent‑custody hearing, psychological testimony concluded Mother could not meet a child’s basic needs without constant, reliable daily assistance, which was unavailable; H.W. had lived her entire life (17 months) outside Mother’s custody, mostly with foster/adoptive mother and siblings.
- Trial court found under R.C. 2151.414(E) that H.W. could not be placed with Mother within a reasonable time due to Mother’s severe limitations, and under R.C. 2151.414(D) that permanent custody to CSB was in H.W.’s best interest; parental rights terminated. Ninth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | CSB’s / State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court’s grant of permanent custody was supported by clear and convincing evidence / not against manifest weight | Trial court erred; Mother can parent and should not lose parental rights; alternative dispositions (temporary or legal custody) were appropriate | Mother’s severe cognitive/mental‑health limitations, lack of support, and history of failing reunification for prior children show she cannot provide a suitable home now or within a year | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supported both statutory prongs; Mother cannot parent within a reasonable time and permanent custody is in child’s best interest |
| Whether CSB failed to make reasonable reunification efforts (warranting denial of permanent custody) | CSB did not provide intensive, tailored parenting services suited to Mother’s cognitive impairments | Magistrate and trial court found CSB had made reasonable efforts (Mother did not object at review hearing); issue forfeited on appeal | Forfeited: Mother failed to preserve the argument; appellate court presumed reasonableness and limited review to statutory permanent‑custody prongs |
Key Cases Cited
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (1996) (establishes that termination requires proof of both statutory prongs: inability to place child with parent and best interest of child)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (explains when court need not re‑determine reasonableness of agency reunification efforts at later custody hearings)