2019 Ohio 1077
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- K.D., born Dec. 2011, was removed from mother’s care after disclosures of sexual abuse, parental drug use, domestic violence, and severe neglect; K.D. has developmental and mental-health needs (PTSD, reactive attachment disorder) and has been in continuous FCCS custody since June 29, 2015.
- S.F. is K.D.’s biological father (paternity confirmed by DNA); he lived in Iowa, had limited contact with K.D., and petitioned for custody but never obtained placement.
- FCCS suspended most in-person visits per the child’s therapist; S.F. participated in only four in-person parent-child observations from Dec. 2015–Aug. 2018 and had frequent telephone contacts monitored by the court.
- S.F.’s background includes a 2001 domestic-violence conviction, a 2005 OVI, and a founded 2001 allegation of sexual abuse of a minor; these factors delayed/complicated ICPC approval and caused ongoing concerns.
- K.D. improved and bonded with a prospective adoptive foster family; FCCS moved for permanent custody (PCC), trial was held Aug. 20, 2018, and the juvenile court granted permanent custody to FCCS. S.F. appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (S.F.) | Defendant's Argument (FCCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination of S.F.’s parental rights was supported by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child’s best interest | S.F.: court erred; he maintained housing/income, attended counseling and some services, and the lack of bond is due to FCCS actions and geographic distance | FCCS: K.D. has been in custody >23 months, S.F. has limited bond with child, troubling criminal/abuse history, inconsistent compliance with plan, and K.D. needs a legally secure adoptive placement | Held for FCCS: clear and convincing evidence supported permanent custody as being in K.D.’s best interest |
| Whether FCCS made reasonable efforts to reunify the family as required before terminating parental rights | S.F.: FCCS failed to provide specific referrals, releases to communicate with providers, and sufficient facilitated visits | FCCS: provided services, travel/gas support, ICPC processes, case-plan referrals; reasonable efforts were made though S.F.’s history and delays limited placement | Held for FCCS: court found FCCS made reasonable efforts under R.C. 2151.419 and C.F. framework |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (recognizes parents’ fundamental right to raise their children)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (Ohio law acknowledging parental rights are fundamental but subject to child welfare)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (parental rights may be terminated when in child’s welfare)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (explains when and how reasonable-efforts requirement applies to permanent-custody proceedings)
- Karches v. Cincinnati, 38 Ohio St.3d 12 (appellate standard to construe evidence in favor of sustaining trial-court judgment)