2021 Ohio 4474
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background:
- Agency opened a dependency case in 2018 over concerns about Crystal R.’s mental health and substance use; children were removed and placed first with relatives and then in the Agency’s temporary custody.
- Case plan required stable housing, mental-health treatment, drug screens, parenting/visitation and cooperation with agency; Crystal repeatedly refused or was inconsistent in compliance.
- Crystal was removed from the case plan in March 2019 for missed visits and positive drug screens; she reengaged briefly in late 2019–2020 but remained inconsistent and reported hearing voices.
- Father (Mitchell) briefly obtained protective-supervision custody in June 2019 but lost it in September 2019 after testing positive for methamphetamine and failing to enroll the children in school.
- Agency filed for permanent custody on November 2, 2020; trial (March 2021) produced testimony diagnosing Crystal with Bipolar I with psychotic features, evidence of unstable housing, positive THC screens, inconsistent counseling, CASA recommendation for termination, and the trial court awarded permanent custody to the Agency and terminated parental rights.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Crystal denied due process because COVID-19 impeded her ability to complete the case plan? | COVID restrictions limited in-person services and thus unfairly lengthened the time she could work the plan. | Majority of the relevant 12-of-22 months predated COVID; Crystal had years to address mental-health needs and repeatedly refused services. | Denied — no due-process violation; record shows noncompliance, not COVID barriers. |
| Did the court err in finding children cannot/should not be placed with Crystal within a reasonable time? | Crystal argued the court’s conclusion was against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Agency pointed to lengthy periods in temporary custody and Crystal’s ongoing instability, untreated psychosis, housing and compliance issues. | Overruled — court properly relied on the 12-of-22 custody period and credible evidence of Crystal’s instability. |
| Did the Agency fail to make reasonable efforts to reunify? | Crystal claimed services were limited and the Agency did not adequately facilitate reunification. | Agency documented case plans, monthly contacts, offers to help with housing and tailored services; court previously found reasonable efforts. | Overruled — ample record support that the Agency made reasonable efforts and repeatedly offered assistance. |
| Was termination of parental rights contrary to children’s best interests? | Crystal argued termination was against manifest weight. | Agency and CASA cited children’s need for permanency, behavioral needs, stable placements, and Crystal’s inability to sustain treatment and safe housing. | Overruled — court found by clear-and-convincing evidence termination served the children’s best interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 556 N.E.2d 1169 (Ohio 1990) (parents have a fundamental liberty interest in custody of their children)
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163, 818 N.E.2d 1176 (Ohio 2004) (application of the 12-of-22-month statutory premise for permanent custody filings)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 862 N.E.2d 816 (Ohio 2007) (agency must make reasonable efforts to reunify prior to termination hearings)