2020 Ohio 776
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- K.H., born April 14, 2017, was placed in emergency temporary custody of Summit County Children Services Board (CSB) shortly after birth and later adjudicated a dependent child.
- CSB’s case arose from Mother C.C.’s history: three older children previously placed with others, a pattern of relying on abusive men, and failure to protect a child from severe physical abuse.
- Mother participated in counseling and complied with many case-plan tasks over a year but failed to consistently implement what she learned and remained in a relationship with an alleged father who was a drug abuser and violent.
- K.H. has medical/special needs (swallowing disorder, developmental delays); Mother required repeated redirection during supervised visits and could not reliably meet K.H.’s needs.
- CSB moved for permanent custody after K.H. had been in CSB temporary custody 21 months (agency involvement 23 consecutive months). The juvenile court awarded CSB permanent custody.
- Mother appealed, raising two assignments of error: challenge to the statutory “12 of 22” prong and that the permanent-custody decision was against the manifest weight/unsupported by clear and convincing evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (C.C.) | Defendant's Argument (CSB) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) "12 of 22" prong was satisfied | "12 of 22" requires at least 12 months of temporary custody during a consecutive 22-month period of agency involvement (narrow reading). | The statutory language is satisfied here; K.H. had been in temporary custody 21 months and CSB had 23 months of consecutive involvement; precedent rejects Mother’s narrow reading. | Court affirmed: prong satisfied; even under Mother’s reading facts meet requirement; prior Ninth Dist. precedent (In re J.C.) rejects her legal theory. |
| Whether grant of permanent custody was against the manifest weight / unsupported by clear and convincing evidence | Mother argued she made progress on her case plan and the court erred in denying reunification; decision was against manifest weight. | CSB and guardian ad litem argued K.H. needed permanence, Mother lacked sustained insight and ability to meet K.H.’s needs, remained in risky relationship, and had no suitable relatives to assume custody. | Court held the juvenile court did not lose its way: clear-and-convincing evidence supported that permanent custody was in K.H.’s best interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (sets the civil manifest-weight review standard and emphasizes deference to the factfinder)
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (1996) (describes the two-prong statutory test for terminating parental rights and awarding permanent custody)