2017 Ohio 997
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Mother Donna Marsh had three children (J.A., R.A., A.M.); two older children previously in agency custody (2010–2013) after drugs/paraphernalia were found in the home and Marsh was convicted of drug offenses.
- Agency filed dependency/neglect complaint January 8, 2015; children entered temporary custody February 2015 after initial familial placement failed.
- Marsh pleaded true to dependency, was incarcerated for a substantial portion of the case, and did not complete case-plan services while incarcerated; upon release she obtained housing and employment but lived with a boyfriend with a disqualifying criminal history.
- Agency moved to convert temporary custody to permanent custody April 25, 2016; permanent-custody hearing occurred August 30–31, 2016; GAL and multiple witnesses testified children were thriving in placements and that reunification was unlikely in a reasonable time.
- Trial court found (1) children had been in agency custody for 12 of the prior 22 months, (2) agency made reasonable reunification efforts, (3) children could not and should not be returned to Marsh within a reasonable time, and (4) permanent custody to the agency was in the children’s best interests; court terminated Marsh’s parental rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory timelines (R.C. 2151.28, 2151.414) were violated | Marsh: adjudicatory/dispositional/permanent-custody timelines were not followed; due process violated | State: timelines were waived and/or delays were caused or consented to by Marsh; statutory noncompliance does not void court authority | Court: Marsh waived timeline objections by not raising them below and by consenting/delaying; even on merits delays were attributable to Marsh; no reversible error |
| Whether agency made reasonable reunification efforts | Marsh: agency failed to provide reasonable opportunities; new case plan issued right before hearing left insufficient time | State: agency provided extensive efforts and case plans; Marsh failed to complete objectives, largely because of incarceration | Court: record supports agency’s reasonable-efforts findings; Marsh failed to complete goals; assignment overruled |
| Whether children could be returned within a reasonable time | Marsh: her post-release progress showed children could be returned within a reasonable time | State: children had 12-of-22 months in custody; Marsh’s housing and supports insufficient; R.A. had special needs requiring supervision | Court: 12-of-22 statutory ground met, so court need not make separate finding; even so, evidence supported finding children could not/should not be returned |
| Whether granting permanent custody was in children’s best interests | Marsh: challenged only indirectly via other arguments | State: placements provided stability; GAL and caregivers testified permanency with agency was appropriate | Court: best-interest record support; permanent custody affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental-rights are fundamental under the Due Process Clause)
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (1997) (state’s authority to intervene to protect children supports limits on parental rights)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (discusses reasonable-efforts requirement and when juvenile courts must address them)