2021 Ohio 1182
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- CCDJFS removed K.G. (2007), J.G. (2011), and M.G. (2013) from maternal grandmother's care in April 2018 and placed them together in foster care; temporary custody was granted to the agency.
- Mother has multiple drug-related convictions (including trafficking), tested positive for several controlled substances during the case, and was incarcerated for portions of the case; she completed the MonDay residential program and some treatment/classes thereafter.
- Mother consistently visited while able but, at the January 2020 permanent-custody hearing, lacked stable housing, a reinstated driver’s license, and full-time income; she minimized her substance use history.
- Father failed to complete his case plan, was largely absent from the children, and was found to have abandoned them; grandmother was incarcerated and unavailable as a placement.
- CCDJFS moved for permanent custody (Nov. 4, 2019). The juvenile court found the children had been in temporary custody for 12+ months of a consecutive 22-month period and, by clear and convincing evidence, that permanent custody to the agency was in the children’s best interests; Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (CCDJFS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody is in the children’s best interests | The court undervalued her bond and efforts; she completed services and needs more time to stabilize | Children are thriving in foster home; Mother lacks stable housing, income, and acceptance of substance problems | Affirmed: best-interest finding supported by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether statutory prong (12 of 22 months in temporary custody) is met | (Mother did not dispute) | Children had been in temporary custody since April 2018, satisfying the prong | Satisfied; court relied on this ground |
| Whether completion of case-plan services requires reunification | Completion (MonDay, treatment, classes) shows remedy of removal causes | Completion alone is not dispositive; Mother failed to remedy core stability and sobriety concerns | Completion insufficient; court focused on sustained stability and capacity to maintain placement |
| Whether relatives (Father/Grandmother) were viable placements | Mother suggested relatives or other short-term housing could work | Father abandoned children; grandmother incarcerated and unsuitable | Relatives unavailable or unsuitable; foster placement is the feasible permanent option |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (state must prove grounds for terminating parental rights by clear and convincing evidence)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (standard for reviewing manifest-weight challenges; appellate deference to factfinder)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (no single best-interest factor controls; court must consider statutory best-interest factors)