2020 Ohio 4853
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- July 2017: Lucas County Children Services (LCCS) removed 13‑month‑old I.H. after reports mother (E.H.) left him unsupervised, had serious mental‑health issues, and showed minimal parenting; child placed in foster care.
- Paternity of father (M.H.) established January 2018; both parents were given reunification case plans and multiple six‑month temporary‑custody extensions.
- LCCS sought permanent custody June 2019, citing parents’ repeated failure to complete services and ongoing safety concerns.
- Extensive dispositional hearings (Dec 2019–Feb 2020) produced testimony about trauma incidents to I.H., parents’ inconsistent compliance (mental‑health, substance‑use, parenting), missed visits, and criminal charges against father.
- Juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence multiple R.C. 2151.414(E) factors (E)(1), (2), (4), (16), that I.H. was bonded to foster parents, placement with relatives (paternal great‑grandmother Peggy Jones) was unsuitable/incomplete, and permanent custody to LCCS was in I.H.’s best interest.
- Both parents appealed; the Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s grant of permanent custody to LCCS.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LCCS made reasonable reunification efforts (R.C. 2151.419/2151.412) | E.H.: LCCS did not prove reasonable efforts—she complied with housing, parenting, reviews. | LCCS: agency provided reunification services, unsupervised visits, counseling; child exhibited trauma and safety concerns justified interventions. | Court: No abuse of discretion; record shows reasonable efforts and reinstatement of supervised visits justified by child’s behavior. |
| Whether termination of parental rights and permanent custody was in child’s best interest (R.C. 2151.414(D)/(E)) | E.H.: She complied with plan; visitation gaps were due to illness; termination not supported by clear and convincing evidence. | LCCS: parents repeatedly failed to remedy conditions, mental‑health/substance issues, missed visits, child bonded to foster family — permanent custody needed. | Court: Affirmed; clear and convincing evidence supported multiple R.C. 2151.414(E) factors and best‑interest findings. |
| Whether LCCS failed to make reasonable efforts to secure paternal great‑grandmother as placement / whether legal custody should have been awarded to her | M.H.: LCCS did not adequately assist Peggy Jones with interstate home‑study; Jones was a suitable placement with family bond. | LCCS: home study was provisional/not completed; Jones lacked relationship with child and had not begun licensing; father had significant case issues. | Court: Juvenile court not required to find reasonable efforts toward non‑parents under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1); foster placement and incomplete home study supported denial of familial placement. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 862 N.E.2d 816 (2007) (defines “reasonable efforts” and limits application to hearings listed in R.C. 2151.419)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954) (defines the clear‑and‑convincing evidence standard)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983) (defines the abuse‑of‑discretion standard)
- State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 404 N.E.2d 144 (1980) (explains that abuse of discretion implies an unreasonable or arbitrary attitude)
- In re Guardianship of Rudy, 65 Ohio St.3d 394, 604 N.E.2d 736 (1992) (standard of review for factual findings about reasonable efforts)