In re H.W.
2016 Ohio 7794
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- H.W., born April 9, 2014, was removed and SCOJFS obtained temporary custody after C.P. allegedly left the infant unattended while fleeing law enforcement; dependency adjudication followed and temporary custody was repeatedly extended.
- A case plan was filed and amended; C.P. was offered services aimed at reunification but had sporadic compliance.
- SCOJFS moved for permanent custody on November 30, 2015, noting the child had been in agency custody for at least 12 of the prior 22 months.
- At the June 21, 2016 permanent-custody hearing C.P. (then serving a two-year sentence for felony convictions) participated; evidence showed multiple incarcerations, unstable housing, failure to complete parenting and substance-abuse programs, positive/invalid drug screens, and sporadic visitation (last visit June 18, 2015).
- SCOJFS investigated relative placements with no suitable option; the guardian ad litem and the child’s attorney supported permanent custody, and the foster parent testified the child thrived and was available for adoption.
- The juvenile court granted SCOJFS permanent custody; C.P. appealed arguing she had made improvements and deserved more time to complete her case plan.
Issues
| Issue | C.P.'s Argument | SCOJFS / Trial Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody is in child’s best interest | C.P. claimed she made significant improvements (parenting classes, drug treatment) and deserved more time to complete her case plan | Agency argued child needed legally secure placement; C.P. failed to complete plan, had repeated incarcerations, instability, and no suitable relatives | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supports permanent custody; more time not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 972 N.E.2d 517 (Ohio 2012) (standard for manifest-weight review and deference to factfinder on credibility)
- Thompkins v. Ohio, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (definition of manifest weight of the evidence)
- In re K.H., 895 N.E.2d 809 (Ohio 2008) (permanent custody must be supported by clear and convincing evidence)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parental rights are fundamental but subject to child’s welfare)
- In re D.A., 862 N.E.2d 829 (Ohio 2007) (parental rights are not absolute; termination allowed when child’s best interest demands)
- State v. Schiebel, 564 N.E.2d 54 (Ohio 1990) (reviewing court examines record to ensure trier of fact had sufficient evidence to meet the required burden)