2023 Ohio 1346
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Mother had prior involuntary termination of parental rights (June 2017) and later gave birth to three children: A.L.1 (Dec. 2018), A.L.2 (Nov. 2019), and A.L.3 (Dec. 2020); HCJFS obtained emergency/interim custody shortly after each birth.
- The children were adjudicated dependent (A.L.1 in April 2019; A.L.2 and A.L.3 in June 2021); mother never had custody of these children.
- Case-plan services were offered (assessments, supervised visitation, parenting classes); the agency moved for permanent custody after repeated concerns about mother’s progress and behavior.
- Record of mother’s aggressive interactions with agency staff and others, episodes requiring security/shifting of visit locations, documented domestic-violence incidents with father D.D., and inconsistent visitation.
- Mother was convicted of fentanyl-related offenses after the magistrate’s decision and was serving an 18‑month sentence at disposition; fathers were either absent/abandoning or incarcerated.
- Maternal grandmother was caring for A.L.1 and A.L.3 and willing to adopt; A.L.2 was placed with a foster family interested in adoption. The magistrate granted permanent custody to HCJFS; the juvenile court adopted the magistrate’s decision and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | HCJFS/Other Parties’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court’s grant of permanent custody was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence | The permanent-custody determination lacked sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight | The record contains clear-and-convincing evidence of R.C. 2151.414(E) factors (prior termination, abandonment/incarceration of fathers, aggression, failure to visit) and best‑interest factors favoring permanent custody | Affirmed — court’s findings supported by clear and convincing evidence and not against manifest weight |
| Whether the children could be placed with mother within a reasonable time or should not be placed with her (R.C. 2151.414(E)) | Mother challenged the sufficiency of proofs supporting inability/unfitness to parent within a reasonable time | Agency relied on multiple statutory E factors: prior involuntary termination, mother’s aggressive conduct, inconsistent visitation, and mother’s incarceration or foreseeable unavailability | Held — one or more E factors were proven by clear and convincing evidence, satisfying prong one |
| Whether permanent custody is in the children’s best interest (R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)) | Mother argued she could provide a legally secure placement and that the GAL and others lacked direct observation of visits | Agency pointed to custodial history, children’s bonds with caregivers (grandmother/foster family), parents’ incarcerations, mother’s conduct, and GAL recommendation for permanent custody | Held — best‑interest factors supported granting permanent custody to HCJFS; legally secure placement achievable only by agency custody |
Key Cases Cited
- Cross v. Ledford, 120 N.E.2d 118 (Ohio 1954) (defines the clear-and-convincing evidence standard)
- In re L.R.D., 128 N.E.3d 926 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019) (parental incarceration can support finding that a legally secure placement cannot be achieved without permanent custody to agency)