2022 Ohio 2677
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- In August 2018 police found six children unsupervised in a home with broken windows, holes in walls, no furniture, and inadequate food; CCDCFS removed the children and obtained temporary custody.
- CCDCFS prepared case plans for Mother (L.C.) and Father requiring housing, parenting, sobriety, substance-abuse treatment, monthly home access, and regular visitation; Mother and Father repeatedly failed to complete the plan.
- Two six-month extensions of temporary custody were granted; CCDCFS moved for permanent custody of two children (T.H. and MK.C.) when no kin placement was available; the other four children were placed with relatives (legal custody orders).
- The permanency hearing occurred more than 120 days after the agency’s permanent-custody motion due to multiple continuances (some requested by Mother); trial court awarded permanent custody of T.H. and MK.C. to CCDCFS and legal custody of the other children to relatives.
- Mother appealed, assigning error as to (1) delay beyond R.C. 2151.414(A)(2)’s 120-day rule, (2) manifest-weight/clear-and-convincing proof for permanent custody, and (3) alleged failure of the agency to make reasonable efforts for reunification when ordering legal custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under R.C. 2151.414(A)(2) (120‑day hearing requirement) | Mother: Trial was held ~400 days after the permanent-custody motion in violation of the statute. | CCDCFS/court: Continuances were for good cause (requested by Mother twice and once by the agency); time limits are directory; remedy is writ of procedendo if challenged. | No abuse of discretion; continuances justified; statutory timing is directory and Mother did not seek procedendo; assignment overruled. |
| Sufficiency/manifest weight to grant permanent custody of T.H. and MK.C. | Mother: Evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish statutory grounds or that permanent custody is in the children’s best interests. | CCDCFS: Clear-and-convincing evidence that R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) and (E) factors exist (12+ months in custody, failure to remedy conditions, substance abuse, child fear of Father) and permanent custody serves best interests. | Affirmed. Trial court’s findings supported by competent, credible evidence; award of permanent custody upheld. |
| Legal custody orders & reasonable efforts to reunify | Mother: CCDCFS failed to expend reasonable efforts to reunite children with her before awarding legal custody to relatives. | CCDCFS: Agency made reasonable efforts (services, referrals, two six‑month extensions, visitation facilitation); Mother continued positive cocaine tests and maintained a relationship with Father, undermining reunification. | Affirmed. Agency’s efforts were reasonable under the circumstances and child safety was paramount. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear-and-convincing evidence)
- In re Davis, 84 Ohio St.3d 520 (Ohio 1999) (timing provisions for juvenile permanent-custody hearings are directory; remedy via writ of procedendo)
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (Ohio 1997) (parental rights are fundamental; termination is a last resort)
- In re Hoffman, 97 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2002) (describes severity of terminating parental rights)