2016 Ohio 2858
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Two siblings, J.L. (b. 2005) and C.L. (b. 2010), were the subject of FCCS intervention after reports of unsanitary housing, developmental delays, educational neglect, and later substantiated sexual abuse to C.L. while parents were unavailable. Children were placed in FCCS custody in August 2013.
- FCCS developed a case plan requiring stable housing, psychological treatment, parenting education, substance screening (for mother P.F.), and services for the children’s special needs; parents (P.F. and father M.L.) made limited, inconsistent progress and resisted some services.
- Visits were supervised, repeatedly suspended, and eventually terminated because visits correlated with regressions and increased sexualized behavior (especially in J.L.) and other negative reactions in both children.
- FCCS filed for permanent custody (initially July 2014; amended Oct. 10, 2014 to add the 12-of-22-month statutory ground). Trial occurred Aug. 3–6, 2015; FCCS and guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody; trial court granted FCCS permanent custody Sept. 9, 2015.
- Parents appealed, challenging (1) the 12-of-22-month custody calculation (P.F.), and (2) whether clear and convincing evidence supported that permanent custody was in the children’s best interest (both parents).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amended filing date may be used to establish the statutory 12 months-in-22-months ground under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) | P.F.: trial court should use the original motion filing date, not the amended motion date, to measure the 12-of-22 months | FCCS: amended motion added (d); used amended motion filing date (Oct. 10, 2014) as end point | Waived by P.F.; court declined plain-error review and overruled the challenge (finding waiver) |
| Whether there was clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the children’s best interest under R.C. 2151.414(D) (interaction, wishes, custodial history, need for legal permanence, other statutory factors) | P.F./M.L.: Parents argued children’s delays limit reliability of expressed wishes; parents contend they had complied with many case-plan tasks and had prior periods of stable housing; claim record does not support that parents could not reunify | FCCS: Parents failed to complete crucial case-plan items, minimized children’s special needs/trauma, demonstrated poor judgment about who had access to the children (including allowing a known abuser around children), and children improved only after visits were suspended; C.L. strongly preferred foster family; both children needed secure, permanent placement | Trial court properly evaluated statutory best-interest factors and found, by clear and convincing evidence, that permanent custody to FCCS (for adoption) was in the children’s best interest; appellate court affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (Ohio 1978) (standard that judgments supported by some competent, credible evidence will not be reversed as against manifest weight)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1997) (plain-error doctrine in civil appeals is disfavored and to be applied only in exceptional circumstances)
- Schade v. Carnegie Body Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 207 (Ohio 1982) (definition of plain error as obvious and prejudicial despite lack of objection)
- Karches v. Cincinnati, 38 Ohio St.3d 12 (Ohio 1988) (appellate principle to construe evidence consistently with the judgment when more than one construction is possible)
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 2004) (discussed by parties regarding timing/calculation of statutory custody period)