In re I.H.
2017 Ohio 815
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Father (D.H.) and mother have 12 children; paternity was never formally established. The appeal concerns two youngest daughters, I.H. (12) and R.J. (9).
- Children entered foster care after safety concerns (truancy, lack of utilities/food, poor hygiene, supervision issues, and father's drug use/activity). Temporary custody was awarded to Franklin County Children Services (FCCS) in Jan. 2014.
- FCCS moved for permanent custody of the four youngest children in July 2015; trial occurred in Feb. 2016. Mother did not appear; father did.
- Trial court returned the two older sons to father but granted FCCS permanent custody of the two daughters. Father appealed only the permanent-custody decision as to the daughters.
- The trial court found R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) applied (children in agency custody 12+ months of a consecutive 22-month period) and that permanent custody was in the daughters’ best interest based on statutory factors, including the children’s expressed wishes, bonding with foster family, and need for a legally secure placement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Trial court / FCCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination of parental rights was supported by clear and convincing evidence (best-interest determination under R.C. 2151.414) | Father argued the court erred on best-interest factors and evidence did not meet clear-and-convincing standard. | Trial court/FCCS relied on statutory best-interest factors, children’s in-camera statements, bonding with foster family, custodial history, and need for permanency. | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supported permanent custody as to daughters. |
| Whether daughters were "abandoned" under R.C. definitions | Father argued missed visits were due to work schedule, no intent to permanently relinquish, rebutting abandonment. | Court applied statutory presumption (2151.011(C)) that >90 days without contact constitutes abandonment; previous case law treats it as time-based, not intent-based. | Court held statutory presumption applies; father’s intent irrelevant; abandonment finding sustained. |
| Whether daughters’ wishes were reliably established | Father argued the girls’ wishes fluctuated and were not counseled that termination could limit future contact. | Court relied on in-camera interviews showing each girl understood permanence and independently expressed desire to remain with foster mother while maintaining contact with father. | Court held children’s wishes were clear and adequately considered. |
| Whether returning the sons to father undermines the determination regarding daughters | Father argued his ability to care for sons shows capability to care for daughters and preserve sibling contact. | Court distinguished sons (older, bonded to father, not adoptable) from daughters (younger, bonded to foster mother, in an adoptive-capable home) and noted greater vulnerability of daughters. | Court held differing circumstances justified different outcomes; returning sons did not require returning daughters. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (Ohio 2008) (defines clear-and-convincing standard in juvenile custody context)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (discusses standard for civil proof and clear-and-convincing evidence)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (standards for manifest-weight and sufficiency review)
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (Ohio 1978) (competent, credible evidence standard)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (definition and discussion of weight of the evidence)
- Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (deference to trial court on witness credibility)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (credibility and weight of evidence are for the trier of fact)