2022 Ohio 3101
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Agency involvement began April 18, 2019 after Mother relapsed on methamphetamine and left children unattended; temporary custody and a reunification case plan followed.
- Mother briefly regained custody in August 2019 under protective supervision, but all three children were removed again and placed in Agency temporary custody on February 9, 2021 after eviction and resumed drug use.
- Case-plan requirements included mental-health and substance-abuse treatment, random drug screens, parenting classes, stable housing, and employment; Mother completed only parenting classes and showed irregular treatment attendance and repeated positive drug tests.
- Mother’s last contact/visit with the children was a Zoom visit on March 17, 2021; she repeatedly missed scheduled in‑person visits and the court suspended visitation on August 10, 2021.
- Agency moved for permanent custody on August 30, 2021; the guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody; hearing occurred January 18, 2022; juvenile court granted permanent custody March 15, 2022 finding abandonment and best-interest factors satisfied. Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody was supported by clear and convincing evidence / not against manifest weight | Mother: award unsupported — she had cared for children earlier, had made some case-plan progress, sought reinstatement of visitation | Agency: Mother abandoned children, failed to remedy removal causes (substance abuse, housing), failed to visit or progress on plan; children need legally secure placement | Court: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence of abandonment and best-interest factors supported permanent custody |
| Whether court erred by not extending temporary custody under R.C. 2151.415 | Mother: court should have extended temporary custody to allow her more time to complete case plan | Agency: Extension unwarranted — Mother had not made significant progress; statutory two‑year limit barred extension for I.C. and S.G. | Court: Affirmed — extension statutorily unavailable for I.C. and S.G.; no abuse of discretion to deny extension for J.G. given lack of significant progress |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (state must prove the statutory standards for terminating parental rights by clear and convincing evidence)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for manifest-weight review in civil cases)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
- In re A.M., 166 Ohio St.3d 127 (2020) (two‑part test for permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414)