2022 Ohio 1155
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Child K.P. was born July 2019 and tested positive for multiple controlled substances; Agency obtained emergency custody within days and child has been in foster care since July 2019.
- Father was incarcerated at the time of K.P.'s birth and remained incarcerated until June 24, 2021; he had no contact with the child until after release.
- Agency added Father to the case plan while incarcerated, requesting substance-abuse treatment, verification of sobriety, stable housing, and consistent income; Agency received no documentation verifying services or post-release sobriety.
- Father visited regularly and positively after release (three months before the permanent-custody hearing), but was unemployed, living with a friend in Indiana, and declined to testify at the hearing.
- Agency moved for permanent custody May 28, 2021; after a September 2021 hearing the juvenile court granted permanent custody to Preble County Job and Family Services on October 21, 2021, finding the best-interest prong met and that K.P. had been in temporary custody for the statutory period.
- Father appealed, arguing the Agency failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody was in K.P.'s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Agency) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody to the Agency was in the child’s best interest | Agency failed to prove best interest by clear and convincing evidence | Child bonded to foster family, needs stability, in Agency custody >12 months; Father lacks verified sobriety, housing, income | Affirmed: court found best-interest met by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether the evidence was insufficient or against the manifest weight of the evidence | Little evidence presented against Father; Father was not questioned on record about housing, employment, sobriety | Father declined to testify and did not present verifying evidence; court credited Agency witnesses and CASA report | Affirmed: evidence sufficient and not against manifest weight |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (termination of parental rights requires proof by clear and convincing evidence)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for manifest-weight review and deference to the factfinder)