In re J.H.
2016 Ohio 640
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Agency began supportive services Feb 2013 after report children locked in room while parents smoked marijuana; home filthy and bug-infested.
- Case closed May 2013; mother began mental health treatment; later deterioration prompted renewed agency involvement.
- Emergency custody awarded July 1, 2013 due to home conditions; complaint filed July 2, 2013 alleging dependency/neglect/abuse; Aug 26, 2013 adjudicated neglected; Sept 23, 2013 dispositional order placed children in agency temporary custody for reunification.
- Children exhibited developmental delays and trauma-related behaviors; received speech/occupational/physical therapy and IEP; parental visitation continued but raised concerns.
- June 9, 2014 annual review suspended visitation due to regressive behaviors; hearings in 2014 upheld suspension; Jan 2015 visit corresponded with regression; Dr. Kennedy appointed for independent evaluation.
- April-May 2015 court granted permanent custody to agency; after foster care, children showed significant progress; experts opined best environment with foster families; guardians ad litem supported permanent custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody was supported by clear and convincing evidence | Mother and father argue insufficiency of evidence, especially regarding reunification prospects. | Agency contends evidence showed inability to safely reunify within reasonable time and best interests favored permanence. | Yes, evidence supported permanent custody by clear and convincing standard. |
| Whether suspension of visitation was proper under the circumstances | Parents claim suspension violated visitation rights and hindered reunification efforts. | Court relied on expert testimony showing trauma triggers and regressive behaviors tied to visits. | Visitation suspension upheld given children's regression post-visits and expert input. |
| Whether agency reasonably complied with R.C. 2151.419/2151.413 and admission of evidence | Parents argue inadequate reasonable efforts and improper exclusion of evidence on reasonable efforts. | Court properly found reasonable efforts; evidence admitted; case plan satisfied. | Agency made reasonable efforts; admission of relevant evidence affirmed; statutory standards satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (requiring clear and convincing evidence to terminate parental rights)
- In re M.B., 2014-Ohio-5009 (Ohio 2014) (appellate review of permanent custody sufficiency of evidence)
- In re C.F., 2007-Ohio-1104 (Ohio 2007) (reasonable efforts prerequisite before permanent custody determinations)
- In re Unger Children, 2005-Ohio-2414 (Ohio 2005) (abuse of discretion standard in visitation decisions)
- In re T.S., 2012-Ohio-2401 (Ohio 2012) (visitation and regressive behaviors linked to parental contact)
- In re K.L., 2013-Ohio-12 (Ohio 2013) (reasonableness of agency efforts and case plan adherence)
- In re L.J., 2015-Ohio-1567 (Ohio 2015) (12-of-22 permanency eligibility and timing)
- In re C.W., 2004-Ohio-6411 (Ohio 2004) (12-of-22 framework and permanency considerations)
- In re Shaeffer, 1993-Ohio-683 (Ohio 1993) (due process in appointing psychological expert for indigent parent)