2021 Ohio 3961
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Twins Ja.M. and Jo.M. removed from mother's care on Nov. 6, 2018 after police found an overdosed caregiver and drugs/paraphernalia within reach; children placed with nonrelatives and later in BCDJFS temporary custody (since July 30, 2019).
- Mother stipulated to dependency (Mar. 6, 2019); reunification case plan required SAMI assessment, outpatient treatment, mental‑health counseling, random drug screens, stable housing/employment, and in‑home parenting education.
- Mother’s compliance was sporadic: multiple positive drug tests, unsuccessful discharges from treatment, intermittent incarceration, transient housing, and continued association with a boyfriend who has substance‑abuse history; visitation was inconsistent and ultimately suspended for failure to comply with treatment and testing.
- Agency moved for permanent custody on Aug. 3, 2020; hearing occurred Mar. 25, 2021 (after a continuance); foster parents, who want to adopt, had cared for the boys since July 2019 and the boys were doing well in placement.
- Juvenile court (adopting magistrate) found children had been in temporary custody for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22‑month period and that granting permanent custody to BCDJFS was in the children’s best interests; court adopted findings that mother had not remedied conditions that led to removal.
- Mother appealed, arguing (1) she was denied a reasonable opportunity to reunify because of COVID‑19 and needed a six‑month extension, and (2) the permanent‑custody award was not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | BCDJFS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mother was denied a reasonable opportunity to reunify and entitled to a sua sponte six‑month extension because of the COVID‑19 pandemic | Pandemic restrictions halted services/visitation and justified a six‑month continuance to complete case plan | Mother did not request an extension below; services were available remotely and pandemic did not prevent completion; statutory time limits preclude extending temporary custody beyond two years | Denied: mother failed to preserve the specific extension claim; pandemic did not excuse her noncompliance and the court could not lawfully extend custody past statutory limits |
| Whether granting permanent custody to BCDJFS was unsupported by sufficient evidence or against the manifest weight of the evidence | Mother argued she had substantially complied with the case plan, was sober, employed, and had suitable housing, so custody should remain with her | Agency pointed to longstanding noncompliance, recurrent positive drug tests, instability, suspended visitation, lack of insight, and children’s need for legally secure placement | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supported best‑interest findings and statutory predicate (children in agency custody >=12 months of consecutive 22 months); decision not against manifest weight |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (state must prove termination standards by clear and convincing evidence before parental rights are terminated)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (standard for manifest‑weight review and deference to factfinder credibility determinations)