2019 Ohio 1464
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Ross County Children’s Services obtained temporary custody of six children from parents who struggled with substance abuse, unstable housing, and inconsistent visitation; five children were removed in Sept. 2016 and the newborn (J.B‑K.) in Jan. 2017.
- The father pleaded guilty to domestic violence/endangering children and served prison time; parents’ participation in services (drug court, inpatient treatment, counseling, visitations) was sporadic or unsuccessful.
- The agency filed for permanent custody in Jan. 2018; the guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody for all six children.
- Permanent‑custody hearing occurred May 21 and July 2, 2018; both parents tested positive for illegal drugs on day one and did not appear on the second day.
- The juvenile court awarded permanent custody of all six children to the agency and terminated both parents’ rights; parents appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether agency made reasonable reunification efforts before permanent‑custody hearing | Father: agency failed to make reasonable efforts and interactions were mostly with mother | Agency: prior adjudicatory and review hearings contained reasonable‑effort findings; father received notice of services | Court: reasonable‑effort findings already made at multiple earlier stages; agency satisfied burden; father’s claim overruled |
| Whether trial court specifically found J.B‑K. could not be placed with mother within a reasonable time under R.C. 2151.414(E) | Mother: court failed to make explicit, statutory‑specific findings (no request for findings) | Agency/court: mother repeatedly failed to remedy substance abuse; evidence supports R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) finding | Court: absent a Civ.R. 52/C.R. 2151.414(C) request, specific phrasing not required; record shows continuous, repeated failure to remedy drug problem; finding supported |
| Whether court addressed R.C. 2151.414(D) best‑interest factors, including children’s wishes | Mother: court did not specifically analyze each best‑interest factor or children’s wishes | Court: no request for findings required; court considered factors and guardian ad litem’s recommendation | Court: trial court considered enumerated factors (including children’s wishes via guardian); mother’s claim overruled |
| Whether permanent custody was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Mother: award not supported; children bonded with each other; mother could provide placement | Agency: children were in stable foster/adoptive placements; mother failed treatment/visits and was absent | Court: weighing credibility and evidence, trial court did not lose its way; permanent custody affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 972 N.E.2d 517 (Ohio 2012) (standard for manifest‑weight review and deference to trial‑court credibility determinations)
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538, 895 N.E.2d 809 (Ohio 2008) (permanent‑custody must be supported by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 862 N.E.2d 816 (Ohio 2007) (reasonable‑effort findings need not be repeated at permanent‑custody hearing if established earlier)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parents’ fundamental liberty interest in raising their children)