In re J.M.E.
2018 Ohio 47
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2018Background
- WCCS removed Jacob (born 2010) after his father died and placed him in agency custody in Feb 2015; juvenile court adjudicated him dependent and placed him in temporary custody of WCCS.
- Mother had an open WCCS case involving another child (R.M.) due to substantiated physical abuse; Jacob was added to that case plan with objectives including substance‑abuse treatment, mental‑health counseling, parenting classes, random drug screens, stable housing/employment, and improved communication/behavior.
- Mother completed parenting classes, maintained housing/employment, and eventually completed an SOP substance program, but repeatedly tested positive for marijuana and often blamed providers or alleged tampering; she also exhibited escalating verbally aggressive and threatening conduct toward agency staff and others.
- Mother had intermittent mental‑health treatment, was diagnosed with major depression, generalized anxiety, PTSD/trauma symptoms, a personality disorder, and a substance‑use disorder; providers found she had limited success applying coping/communication skills and had poor attendance.
- Visitation moved from unsupervised to supervised and was ultimately suspended in Dec 2016 because of positive drug tests, inappropriate conversations with Jacob, threats to agency staff, and cancellation/poor engagement in bonding/therapeutic sessions.
- WCCS moved for permanent custody in Jan 2017; after an evidentiary hearing, the juvenile court found (by clear and convincing evidence) Jacob had been in agency custody for more than 12 of a consecutive 22 months, Mother failed to remedy the conditions of removal, and permanent custody to WCCS was in Jacob’s best interest. Mother appealed; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | WCCS/State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether granting WCCS permanent custody abused discretion | Mother argued she made significant, if imperfect, progress on case plan and should regain custody | WCCS argued Mother made only limited progress; persistent substance use, mental‑health problems, and threatening behavior endangered reunification | Affirmed: No abuse of discretion; permanent custody supported by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether grant of permanent custody was contrary to manifest weight of evidence | Mother contended best‑interest finding was against the weight of evidence given her bond and improvements | WCCS pointed to bonding concerns, CASA recommendation for permanent custody, foster placement stability, and Mother’s ongoing issues | Affirmed: Findings not against manifest weight; juvenile court reasonably credited agency and provider testimony |
| Whether statutory test for permanent custody (R.C. 2151.414) was satisfied | Mother disputed the reasonable‑time/placement prong | WCCS established the alternative statutory basis: Jacob had been in temporary custody >12 of 22 months | Affirmed: Statutory threshold met (12/22 months) and best‑interest factors supported custody award |
| Whether WCCS made reasonable reunification efforts | Mother argued agency obstructed reunification (e.g., bonding assessment) | WCCS showed continued case planning, services, assessments, and attempts to reinstate visitation conditioned on negative tests/behavioral change | Affirmed: Court found reasonable efforts were made and conditions remained unremedied |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (recognizes parental liberty interest in raising children)
- Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (parental rights as fundamental liberty interest)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (state must prove termination standards by clear and convincing evidence)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (defines clear and convincing evidence standard)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (standard for reviewing manifest‑weight challenges)
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (discusses parental rights and state authority to remove children)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (addresses state authority to terminate parental rights)