2021 Ohio 4146
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Aug. 2019: J.M. disclosed to classmates that her father sexually abused her; mother (Bianca M.) told a caseworker she "knew in her gut" something happened but did not report it or remove the father.
- Agency obtained emergency temporary custody Aug. 22, 2019; children adjudicated dependent Oct. 18, 2019 and placed in agency custody.
- Case plan for reunification required mother to complete psychological evaluation, continue counseling, secure housing, and maintain employment; mother remained employed and engaged in counseling and later moved to Mansfield.
- Children placed in relative and then foster/therapeutic homes; all four exhibited serious trauma-related behavioral and sexualized behaviors; foster caregivers reported improvement after visits with mother were suspended in April 2021.
- Agency filed for permanent custody Feb. 2021 after children had been in temporary custody 12+ of 22 months; trial court granted permanent custody June 7, 2021, citing mother’s failure to protect and children’s need for a legally secure placement.
- Mother appealed, arguing (1) the permanent custody award is against the manifest weight of the evidence and (2) the agency failed to use reasonable reunification efforts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the permanent custody award is against the manifest weight of the evidence | Bianca: she complied with case plan (counseling, visits, employment, housing) and posed no demonstrated harm to the children; reunification should continue | Agency: children have severe behavioral/trauma needs, mother failed to protect children from father’s sexual abuse, foster homes provide needed stability; children need legally secure placement | Affirmed. Court found clear-and-convincing evidence that permanent custody is in children’s best interests given mother’s failure to protect and children’s need for stability |
| Whether agency failed to use reasonable efforts to prevent removal/reunify family | Bianca: agency should have pursued a temporary-custody extension rather than permanent custody; alleges insufficient reunification efforts | Agency/court: trial court previously found reasonable efforts at earlier hearings; statute does not require renewed proof at permanent-custody hearing where efforts were already made | Affirmed. Appellant’s claim undeveloped; record shows prior reasonable-efforts findings and court did not err in granting permanent custody |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (standard and meaning of "weight of the evidence").
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (Ohio 2008) (clear-and-convincing proof required for permanent custody).
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (statutory purposes and factors for child-placement best-interest analysis).
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental right to raise children is a fundamental liberty interest).
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (due process standard in parental-rights termination contexts).
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (deference to trial court credibility findings).