2022 Ohio 1504
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Child K.H.-T. born March 16, 2018; CCDCFS removed him June 22, 2018 after hospital findings of failure to thrive and unexplained bruises; emergency temporary custody granted same day.
- Child adjudicated abused and dependent December 4, 2018; CCDCFS received temporary custody and later moved for permanent custody (motion filed June 14, 2019).
- Mother (S.T.) has documented mental-health diagnoses (schizoaffective disorder, bipolar, depression); case plan required mental-health treatment, medication management, and parenting services.
- Evidence at the October 28, 2021 hearing (testimony of social worker Danielle Bailey and the guardian ad litem) showed Mother repeatedly switched/providers, was inconsistent with therapy and medication, and had erratic visitation; the child had lived with foster parents over a year and was reportedly thriving.
- Juvenile court found statutory grounds under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) (12+ months in agency custody) and multiple (E) factors, found permanent custody in the child’s best interest, terminated Mother’s parental rights, and granted permanent custody to CCDCFS; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | CCDCFS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the statutory custody-duration ground (R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d)) was met | The termination is against the manifest weight of the evidence (challenging sufficiency of proof supporting permanent custody). | Child had been continuously in agency custody for the requisite 12+ months of a consecutive 22-month period. | Court held B(1)(d) satisfied: child in agency custody from June 2018 through Oct. 2021. |
| Whether the (E) factors (parental inability/unsuitability) were proven | Mother asserted she engaged in services (completed parenting, sought therapy) and contested the sufficiency of evidence showing inability to care for child. | Mother’s engagement was inconsistent; she switched providers, stopped attending, and was not reliably taking medication; risks to child persisted. | Court held clear-and-convincing evidence supported multiple (E) findings (failure to remedy conditions; chronic mental illness affecting parenting; past abuse/neglect concerns). |
| Whether permanent custody is in the child’s best interest under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) and (D)(2) | Mother argued termination was not in child’s best interest. | Child is bonded to and thriving with foster family, had been in care long-term, no relatives seeking custody, and statutory D(2) subsections were satisfied. | Court held permanent custody was in the child’s best interest and that all applicable D(2) factors were met; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Trickey v. Trickey, 158 Ohio St. 9, 106 N.E.2d 772 (1952) (trial court’s discretionary findings deserve deference because of its direct contact with parties).
- In re Awkal, 95 Ohio App.3d 309, 642 N.E.2d 424 (8th Dist. 1994) (juvenile court discretion in permanent custody orders warrants substantial respect).