In re J.A.
2019 Ohio 4116
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- June 2016: Scioto County Children Services removed J.A. and V.A. (ages 10 and 13) because parents were heroin addicts and the family lived in an unsafe building; court placed children in temporary custody.
- Children remained in same foster home for ~1+ years; foster parents willing to adopt.
- Parents had long histories of addiction, intermittent inpatient/outpatient treatment, relapses, and pending felony drug charges; parents later claimed they had a suitable home and were in treatment at hearing.
- Guardian ad litem and caseworker recommended permanent custody; children (through GAL) wanted to be adopted by foster parents and expressed concerns about parents’ sobriety and housing.
- Magistrate and trial court granted Agency permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d); father appealed arguing (1) the statute is procedurally unconstitutional and (2) the permanent-custody decision was against the manifest weight / unsupported by clear and convincing evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Agency/Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) (procedural due process) | Statute creates irrebuttable/time-based presumption of unfitness, shifts burden, conflicts with Santosky due process framework | Father waived issue by not raising it below; appellate court need not consider forfeited constitutional claims sua sponte | Court refused to review on appeal (waiver); overruled constitutional assignment of error |
| Whether permanent custody was supported by clear and convincing evidence / against manifest weight (best-interest determination under R.C. 2151.414) | Father argued he made progress, completed treatment components, had a suitable home, and sought reunification; evidence of improvement disputed | Agency pointed to long history of addiction, relapses, discharge from outpatient, pending charges, children’s stable foster placement and expressed wishes; GAL supported permanent custody | Court affirmed: evidence and witness credibility supported finding permanent custody was in children’s best interest; not against manifest weight |
| Applicability of R.C. 2151.414(E)(7)-(11) abandonment factors (e.g., E(10)) | Father disputed abandonment; said foster parents blocked calls and contested Agency’s presumption of abandonment | Agency argued parents had no contact >90 days, so abandonment presumed under R.C. 2151.011(C) | Trial court found none of E(7)-(11) applied and credited father’s testimony about blocked calls |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (due process standard for termination of parental rights)
- Lehman v. Lycoming Cty. Children’s Servs. Agency, 458 U.S. 502 (1982) (harm of prolonged custodial uncertainty for children)
- State v. Awan, 489 N.E.2d 277 (1986) (constitutional challenge waived if not raised at trial)
- State v. Quarterman, 19 N.E.3d 900 (2014) (discussing appellate discretion to review forfeited constitutional claims and plain-error standard)
- In re M.D., 527 N.E.2d 286 (1988) (forfeited constitutional challenges may be reviewed in limited circumstances)
- Cross v. Ledford, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re K.H., 895 N.E.2d 809 (2008) (permanent custody standard: best-interest must be proved by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re C.F., 862 N.E.2d 816 (2007) (no single best-interest factor is controlling; court must consider totality)
- In re B.C., 21 N.E.3d 308 (2014) (courts should avoid leaving children in prolonged custodial limbo)