In re J.M.D.
2014 Ohio 1609
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Mother L.D. and her live-in boyfriend were convicted of sexually abusing the boyfriend’s minor daughter; the abuse occurred in the home while L.D.’s young daughter J.M.D. was present and L.D. had prior child-endangerment history.
- After arrest, J.M.D. (then 8) was temporarily placed with maternal grandparents, who soon asked WCCS to remove her because they could not keep her safe. WCCS obtained temporary custody and J.M.D. was adjudicated dependent.
- L.D. pleaded guilty to sexual battery and was incarcerated for a two-year term; she had limited supervised contact with J.M.D. (one brief visit) and wrote letters from prison.
- J.M.D. was placed in foster care, where she showed marked behavioral and academic improvement, bonded with foster parents, and expressed a desire to remain with them; the foster parents were willing to adopt.
- WCCS moved for permanent custody under R.C. 2151.413(A) and 2151.414; the juvenile court found abandonment and the 12-of-22-month custody prong satisfied, and awarded permanent custody to WCCS.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (L.D.) | Defendant's Argument (WCCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether award of permanent custody was against the manifest weight of the evidence | L.D. argued WCCS failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody served J.M.D.'s best interests; pointed to maintained ties (one visit, contact with sister and grandparents) and efforts at self-improvement while incarcerated | WCCS argued evidence showed J.M.D. was traumatized by witnessing sexual abuse, thriving in foster care, had no safe relative placement, and needed a legally secure permanent home; mother was incarcerated and had prior convictions | Court held: Not against manifest weight; clear and convincing evidence supported best-interest finding and award of permanent custody to WCCS |
| Whether trial court had to find the child could not be returned within a reasonable time under R.C. 2151.414(B)(2) | L.D. contended the court should consider her rehabilitative progress and allow time for reunification | WCCS (and court) asserted the motion proceeded under R.C. 2151.413(A), so (B)(2) was not applicable; even if it applied, court need not delay permanency to "experiment" with parent | Court held: (B)(2) not required where motion brought under 2151.413(A); no reversible error in refusing to delay permanency |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parents have a fundamental liberty interest in raising their children)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for manifest-weight review in civil cases)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (2008) (permanent custody requires clear and convincing proof that statutory prongs and best interests are met)
- In re D.A., 113 Ohio St.3d 88 (2007) (parental rights are fundamental but not absolute; termination permissible when best interests and statutory requirements satisfied)