In re J.H.
2017 Ohio 7070
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- J.H., born August 24, 2014, was removed five days later; Cuyahoga County Dept. of Children & Family Services (CCDCFS) placed him with his maternal grandmother and filed dependency/temporary custody proceedings.
- Mother had documented substance abuse and untreated mental-health issues; several of her other children were not in her care. Father (L.H.) established paternity but initially declined to pursue custody and continued living with mother.
- Case plan required mother to complete substance-abuse and mental-health treatment; father’s plan required establishment of paternity (which he completed). Father did not obtain independent, verified housing or fully cooperate with later agency requests (hair drug test, home-contact information).
- CCDCFS moved for permanent custody in February 2016, citing that child could not or should not be placed with either parent and that permanent custody was in the child’s best interest. Guardian ad litem (GAL) ultimately recommended permanent custody (or maternal grandmother custody) given length of placement.
- At the hearing, social workers testified father was employed but had not verified income or stable independent housing, had refused a hair test and failed to provide contact/address for proposed relatives; father did not testify. The juvenile court granted permanent custody to CCDCFS and terminated parental rights.
- Father appealed, raising four assignments challenging (1) sufficiency/clear-and-convincing evidence, (2) manifest weight, (3) best-interest finding, and (4) whether CCDCFS made reasonable reunification efforts; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (CCDCFS) | Defendant's Argument (Father L.H.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear-and-convincing evidence supports finding child cannot/should not be placed with father within a reasonable time (R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) & (E)) | Father failed to remedy conditions: initially refused separate custody, lived with mother (the primary barrier), failed to provide hair test, home contact, or verified housing/income; agency made reasonable efforts. | Father argued he had employment, provided negative urine screens, completed paternity, and agency/GAL did little investigation or late home visit; witnesses lacked direct observation of bonding. | Affirmed — appellate court found competent, credible evidence satisfied clear-and-convincing standard; father’s delayed efforts and noncooperation supported R.C. 2151.414(E) findings. |
| Whether result is against the manifest weight of the evidence | Permanent-custody award supported by testimony, GAL recommendation, and the child’s long placement with maternal grandmother. | Father contended witness credibility was questionable and evidence insufficient. | Affirmed — record contained sufficient credible evidence; not against manifest weight. |
| Whether granting permanent custody was in child’s best interest (R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)) | Best-interest factors favored permanency: child bonded to maternal grandmother, living with siblings, maternal grandmother willing to adopt; child nearly entire life in stable placement. | Father argued he could provide a legally secure placement (employment, paternal grandmother residence) and agency ignored him. | Affirmed — court properly weighed D(1) factors and prioritized the child’s need for permanency and stability. |
| Whether CCDCFS made reasonable efforts to reunify and provide diligent case planning | Agency made and updated case plans, offered services, and reasonably focused on mother because her problems were the barrier; when father sought custody, agency attempted investigation but father failed to cooperate. | Father argued agency failed to verify employment, observe him with child, or timely investigate — amounting to deficient case planning. | Affirmed — record showed reasonable, diligent efforts and agency responsiveness; father’s lack of cooperation undermined his claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (termination of parental rights implicates fundamental liberty interests requiring heightened evidentiary standards)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (Ohio 1990) (parental interest in custody is a fundamental liberty interest)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (agency must make reasonable reunification efforts prior to permanent-custody termination)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (Ohio 2006) (statutory best-interest factors and their application)
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1990) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)