2022 Ohio 1766
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Newborn I.A.-W. was removed in Dec. 2020 after Mother tested positive for methamphetamine; both parents had substance-abuse, mental-health, domestic-violence, and housing issues.
- Mother stipulated to an amended dependency complaint; juvenile court adjudicated the child dependent and placed her in CCDCFS temporary custody.
- Court-approved case plan required substance-abuse treatment, mental-health care, domestic-violence/anger-management classes, and assistance obtaining stable housing; Mother completed inpatient treatment but failed to complete outpatient follow-up, mental-health treatment, or required classes and declined offered sober housing.
- Child has been placed with the same foster family since removal, is bonded to them, and the foster parents are willing to adopt.
- Guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody to CCDCFS; the juvenile court granted permanent custody in Nov. 2021 and terminated parental rights.
- Mother appealed, arguing (1) CCDCFS failed to make reasonable efforts (due-process/R.C.2151.419) and (2) the permanent-custody award was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (CCDCFS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the agency violated due process by failing to make reasonable efforts to prevent continued removal / return the child (R.C.2151.419) | Agency failed to develop a viable case plan or provide needed services; due-process rights violated. | R.C.2151.419 does not apply to R.C.2151.413 permanent-custody motions; in any event, agency made reasonable efforts (referrals and services). | Court: R.C.2151.419 is inapplicable per In re C.F.; nonetheless record supports that CCDCFS made reasonable efforts. |
| Whether granting permanent custody was against the manifest weight of the evidence (R.C.2151.414 two-prong test; best interests) | Mother had partially complied and needed more time to finish the plan, obtain housing and employment; had a relationship with the child. | Mother repeatedly failed to complete case-plan tasks, violated probation and was incarcerated twice, visits were inconsistent/stopped, child bonded to foster parents; GAL recommended custody. | Court: Sufficient competent, credible evidence showed the child could not/should not be placed with Mother within a reasonable time and that permanent custody was in child’s best interests; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (R.C.2151.419 reasonable-efforts determination does not apply to R.C.2151.413 permanent-custody motions)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (defines "clear and convincing" standard)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (2006) (juvenile court need only "consider" R.C.2151.414(D)(1) factors; no requirement to expressly discuss each factor)
- In re A.M., 166 Ohio St.3d 127 (2020) (clarifies that consideration, not detailed recitation, satisfies the best-interest analysis)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (parental right to custody is a fundamental liberty interest)