In re K.S.
2017 Ohio 5778
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- K.S., born 2003, has a history of dependency findings (2006, 2012, 2014) and was in FCCPS custody since May 30, 2014; she has diagnoses of disruptive behavior disorder and borderline intellectual functioning and requires residential treatment.
- FCCPS developed a case plan for Mother (S.S.) requiring participation in K.S.’s treatment, sobriety, stable housing, and a psychological evaluation; Mother signed the plan and completed a psychological evaluation in August 2016.
- K.S. was placed in multiple therapeutic and residential facilities (Children’s Resource Center, Beechbrook, Adriel, Bell Fare) due to aggressive behavior, running away, and assaults; providers recommended continued residential care.
- While on visitation with Mother (Sept 2015–May 2016) K.S. engaged in self-harm on multiple occasions and required acute psychiatric care in May 2016; Mother acknowledged she could not safely care for K.S. or afford the residential costs.
- FCCPS moved for permanent custody (filed repeatedly between 2015–2016); a hearing occurred Oct. 18, 2016; the magistrate and juvenile court granted FCCPS permanent custody on Nov. 17, 2016; the court overruled Mother’s objections on Feb. 1, 2017.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (FCCPS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to award permanent custody | Trial court lacked clear and convincing evidence to terminate parental rights | Record contains competent, credible evidence showing statutory findings and best‑interest factors | Affirmed — evidence met clear and convincing standard |
| Proper application of R.C. §§2151.414/2151.415 and due process | Court misapplied statutes and violated due process | Statutory framework was correctly applied; R.C. §2151.415(D)(4) was not the basis for decision | Affirmed — no error in statutory application or due process findings |
| Whether child can be placed with Mother within a reasonable time (R.C. §2151.414(E)) | Mother argued improved compliance and ability to parent; outpatient care sufficient | Mother has not remedied conditions; child needs ongoing residential care Mother cannot provide or pay for | Affirmed — child cannot/should not be placed with Mother within a reasonable time (E)(1) and (16) apply |
| Best interest of the child (R.C. §2151.414(D)) | Mother argued permanency with her would serve child’s interests | Child’s need for secure, legally permanent placement, custodial history, treatment needs, and GAL recommendation favor FCCPS | Affirmed — permanent custody to FCCPS is in child’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (parental rights are a fundamental liberty interest)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (standard for terminating parental rights requires heightened procedural protections)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (Ohio 1990) (parental interest in care and custody is fundamental)
- In re Smith, 77 Ohio App.3d 1 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991) (permanent termination of parental rights compared to death penalty analogy)
- In re Estate of Haynes, 25 Ohio St.3d 101 (Ohio 1986) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (standard for appellate review of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (Ohio 1996) (one E-factor may support finding child cannot be placed with parent within reasonable time)
- Rice v. City of Cleveland, 114 Ohio St. 299 (Ohio 1926) (credibility and testimonial evaluation principles cited for factfinding)