2023 Ohio 400
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background:
- In Sept. 2018 BCDJFS removed three young children after finding a mobile home with severely unsanitary and unsafe conditions; children were placed in foster care and a case plan was adopted.
- Parents (Mother A.T. and Father M.K.) signed voluntary custody agreements, completed many services (employment, counseling, some programs) but repeatedly failed to maintain a clean, safe, and serviceable home (no running water, pests, unsafe fixtures, heating concerns).
- Children remained with the same foster family for about two years, corrected hygiene issues, bonded with foster parents, and foster father expressed intent to adopt.
- BCDJFS moved for permanent custody (Feb. 2020) based on children being in agency custody >12 months of a consecutive 22-month period and best-interest concerns; juvenile court granted permanent custody after a hearing.
- This court initially reversed on a timeliness ground; the Ohio Supreme Court reversed and remanded to address the remaining assignments of error; on remand the Twelfth District affirmed the juvenile court's permanent-custody award.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody was supported by clear and convincing evidence and not against manifest weight | BCDJFS: children in agency custody >12 of 22 months; parents failed to remediate unsafe/unsanitary home; best interest favors custody to agency | Mother/Father: completed case plan items, bonded with children, housing improved; evidence insufficient | Affirmed: clear-and-convincing evidence supports best-interest findings; parents did not substantially remedy removal causes |
| Whether Father was entitled to a COVID-related six-month extension before permanent custody proceedings | BCDJFS: no such extension required; parents had ample time before pandemic to address problems | Father: pandemic impeded ability to complete in‑home parenting education and reunify; requested more time | Denied: Father never sought extension below; no authority or plain-error basis; facts did not warrant additional time |
| Whether the juvenile court erred in weighing parental compliance with case plan | BCDJFS: completion of some services does not preclude permanent custody when core removal causes remain | Parents: substantial compliance and improved circumstances mean custody should not be terminated | Affirmed: case-plan completion is not dispositive; court properly focused on whether underlying causes (home safety/sanitation) were remedied |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (termination of parental rights requires proof by clear and convincing evidence)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for reviewing manifest weight and credibility determinations)