2018 Ohio 3711
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Mother (Christina Lively) admitted children K.M. and D.M. were neglected in March 2017; children placed in temporary custody of Crawford County JFS and a case plan was adopted.
- Agency moved for permanent custody in January 2018; GAL recommended permanent custody; trial court granted permanent custody in April 2018.
- Case plan required Lively to complete mental‑health and AOD evaluations and counseling, submit to random drug screens, obtain stable employment, and maintain appropriate housing.
- Evidence showed repeated positive drug screens (THC, cocaine, fentanyl), unsuccessful completion of drug counseling, job loss, sporadic visitation (missed/late visits), and significant child‑support arrears.
- Proposed alternative placements (kin, friend Stumbo, father Milligan) were either not approved, incomplete, or deemed unsuitable; Stumbo’s home‑study was incomplete and he had limited contact with the children.
- Trial court found Lively failed to substantially remedy conditions and lacked commitment; appellate court affirmed, holding clear and convincing evidence supports best‑interest finding for permanent custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lively) | Defendant's Argument (Agency) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence showed permanent custody was in the children’s best interests | Court lacked sufficient evidence to conclude permanency with the agency was in children’s best interests | Record (drug tests, failed services, unstable housing/employment, sporadic visits, arrears, lack of suitable kinship) shows permanent custody was necessary for child safety and stability | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supports best‑interest finding |
| Whether Lively substantially remedied conditions that caused removal (R.C. 2151.414(E)(1)) | Lively contends she made progress and the court’s finding was unsupported | Agency points to missed counseling, positive drug tests, incarceration, job loss, and inability to demonstrate six months sobriety | Affirmed: trial court reasonably found Lively failed to substantially remedy conditions |
| Whether viable alternative long‑term placements existed without awarding permanent custody to JFS (R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(d)) | Lively proposed placement with Stumbo or other relatives | Agency showed kin were disqualified or had problematic histories; Stumbo’s evaluation incomplete, minimal relationship with children, shared plans to reintroduce Lively into household | Affirmed: no adequate, legally secure placement alternatives shown |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (Ohio 1990) (parents have a fundamental liberty interest in child rearing)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (parental rights as a fundamental liberty interest)
- Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1923) (parental liberty interest)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (standard of proof required to terminate parental rights)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (weight of child’s wishes in best‑interest analysis)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (Ohio 2006) (totality of circumstances in best‑interest determination)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (Ohio 1985) (standard of review for permanent custody determinations)
- In re Adoption of Lay, 25 Ohio St.3d 41 (Ohio 1986) (appellate review of juvenile court determinations)