In re I.W., 2017 Ohio 8495

Background

Three children (I.W., A.W., Jr., S.W.) were placed in Montgomery County Children Services (MCCS) custody after newborn withdrawal, chronic missed medical appointments, developmental concerns for A.W., Jr., and ongoing maternal prescription-drug abuse/mental-health issues.
I.W. and S.W. experienced neonatal withdrawal; I.W. required ongoing specialist care for kidney reflux and frequent medical interventions; parents missed many pediatric/specialty appointments.
Parents lived intermittently in shelter/family homes, had unstable housing history, and Mother had a long history of Xanax/prescription misuse with inconsistent engagement in treatment and several positive drug screens; Mother also lied or altered medical documents.
MCCS provided services (drug/mental-health treatment referrals, reunification services via Agape, parenting programs, visitation), but Mother failed to complete treatment and reunification hours; Father worked long hours, had limited participation, and minimized Mother’s problems.
GAL and MCCS eventually moved for permanent custody; the juvenile court and later the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the children could not be placed with the parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with them, and (2) permanent custody to MCCS was in the children’s best interests.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether children (esp. S.W.) could be placed with parents within a reasonable time under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)	Mother: she complied with treatment by March 2015 and worked with Agape; missed appointments due to agency failures. Father: he made progress and could provide care (use daycare).	MCCS/GAL: parents failed repeatedly to remedy conditions (Mother’s continued drug use, dishonesty, noncompletion of services; Father’s limited participation and refusal to accept Mother’s problems).	Court: affirmed — clear, credible evidence supports finding children cannot/should not be placed with parents within reasonable time.
Whether permanent custody to MCCS was in children’s best interest (R.C. 2151.414(D))	Parents: loving interactions, stable housing and Father’s income, insufficient detail in court’s analysis.	MCCS/GAL: children bonded to foster families, parents not bonded, medical/developmental needs unmet, need for legally secure placement.	Court: affirmed — factors (interaction, custodial history, need for legally secure placement) favor MCCS.
Whether MCCS made reasonable efforts to prevent removal/achieve reunification	Father: MCCS could have arranged daycare or limited Mother’s visitation; agency failed to prevent removal.	MCCS: provided appropriate services (treatment referrals, reunification program, visitation, appointment notices); parents refused or failed to engage.	Court: affirmed — MCCS made reasonable, diligent efforts; agency not required to provide every possible service.
Weighing credibility and manifest-weight standard on contested facts	Parents: contest findings, claim agency miscommunication.	MCCS/GAL: presented records, drug screens, provider testimony, visitation and service records; trial court best positioned to assess credibility.	Court: affirmed — deference to trial court’s credibility determinations; evidence sufficed for burden of proof.

Key Cases Cited

In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 862 N.E.2d 816 (2007) (one statutory factor under R.C. 2151.414(E) is sufficient to support permanent-custody finding)
In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95, 661 N.E.2d 738 (1996) (construction of permanent-custody statutes and standards)
In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163, 818 N.E.2d 1176 (2004) (analysis of 12-of-22-months custody grounds for permanent custody)
In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498, 857 N.E.2d 532 (2006) (no single factor in R.C. 2151.414(D) is controlling; courts consider the totality of relevant factors)
Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (1984) (trial court is best positioned to weigh witness credibility and demeanor)