2020 Ohio 5143
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background:
- Father (Dale Straw) is biological parent of J.L.S. (b. 2016) and B.N.S. (b. 2017); mother is Tiffany Thomas. PCDJFS had been involved since 2016 for parenting, mental‑health, domestic‑violence, housing, and medical‑care concerns.
- Children were removed in Nov. 2017 (adjudicated dependent), returned under protective supervision in Jan. 2019, and again removed June 2019 for lack of housing; PCDJFS had temporary custody when it sought permanent custody in May 2020.
- Case plans required Straw to obtain stable housing, maintain employment, complete a parenting evaluation/classes, and engage in mental‑health counseling; he completed some tasks (parenting classes, intermittent counseling, later employment) but repeatedly lacked stable housing and missed counseling appointments.
- Mother surrendered her parental rights before the permanent‑custody hearing; Straw attended most supervised visits and was described as a "fun adult" by caseworkers but not as a primary caregiver.
- GAL recommended permanent custody to PCDJFS; trial court found the children had been in agency custody ~18 of 22 months, Straw failed to complete case‑plan objectives (housing, counseling), and that permanent custody was in the children’s best interest.
- Straw appealed, arguing the award was against the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence and that COVID‑19 impeded his compliance.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (PCDJFS) | Defendant's Argument (Straw) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody was supported by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the children’s best interest | Children were in agency custody 18 of 22 months; Straw lacked stable housing, failed to complete counseling, and children are bonded to foster parents | Straw had obtained employment, made some counseling progress, planned to buy a mobile home, and COVID delayed final steps; he needed more time | Court held PCDJFS met clear and convincing evidence standard; permanent custody affirmed |
| Whether the trial court’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Evidence and witness credibility supported findings: prolonged custody history, lack of parent–child bond with Straw, incomplete case plan | Straw argued the court ignored his progress and gave insufficient weight to his recent efforts | Court concluded the trial court did not lose its way; credibility findings and inferences were reasonable |
| Whether COVID‑19 justified postponing termination or excused noncompliance | Agency: Straw’s noncompliance predated COVID; he offered no documentation of post‑hearing housing or counseling via telephone | Straw: pandemic disrupted housing paperwork and in‑person counseling appointments | Court held COVID did not excuse years of prior failures; speculative future plans insufficient to prevent termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (Ohio 1997) (parental rights are fundamental but subject to child’s welfare)
- State v. Hoffman, 97 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2002) (termination of parental rights described as the family‑law equivalent of the death penalty)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (Ohio 1979) (child’s welfare is the controlling principle)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (Ohio 1985) (clear and convincing evidence standard for permanent‑custody determinations)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (framework for reviewing manifest‑weight challenges)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (discussion of manifest‑weight standard)