2024 Ohio 3198
Ohio Ct. App.2024Background
- CCDCFS initiated proceedings after allegations of abuse, neglect, and dependency involving minor children Kh.D. and Ky.D., stemming from a physical altercation between Mother (A.D.) and Kh.D.
- Temporary custody was initially given to the agency; while Kh.D. was later reunified with Mother, Ky.D. remained in agency custody due to persistent familial conflict.
- Both children eventually refused visitation and family counseling with Mother, expressing a desire not to reunite, and were thriving in foster care.
- The court found Mother made improvements in housing but had not completed anger management or demonstrated resolution of mental health and parent-teen conflict issues.
- The children and their guardian ad litem supported permanent custody to the agency, and the trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights, awarding permanent custody to CCDCFS.
- Mother appealed, asserting errors regarding manifest weight of the evidence, sufficiency of the agency’s reunification efforts, and violation of her due process rights.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | CCDCFS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ruling was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Mother remedied issues and agency failed in reasonable reunification efforts | Mother failed to resolve issues causing removal; children do not wish reunification | Not against manifest weight; evidence supports the judgment |
| Whether CCDCFS made “reasonable efforts” to reunite the family | Agency did not do enough to involve/prepare children for family counseling | Case plan was reasonable; children old enough to refuse counseling/visitation | Agency met statutory obligations; efforts deemed reasonable |
| Whether due process was violated by not giving sufficient opportunity/referrals | Agency moved too quickly, insufficient support for services/counseling | Law permits original disposition of permanent custody; reasonable efforts shown | No due process violation; agency operated within legal bounds |
| Whether evidence of neglect for Kh.D. was sufficient | Insufficient evidence of neglect, not properly proved | Court had prior adjudications and evidence of conflict/issues | Procedurally improper; not separately assigned, not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- In re N.B., 2015-Ohio-314 (parental rights are fundamental but not absolute; best interest of child controls)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (parent’s fundamental liberty interest in care, custody, and management of their child)
- In re J.B., 2013-Ohio-1704 (termination of parental rights akin to death penalty in family law—last resort)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179 (standard for manifest weight review)
- Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (importance of trial judge’s observation of witness credibility)