In re L.D.
2017 Ohio 1037
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mother (A.S.) had three children removed due to parental substance abuse, mental-health issues, and unstable housing; all children were placed with maternal grandfather until his death in Sept. 2014, when CCDCFS obtained emergency custody.
- Case plan (Oct. 2014) required substance-abuse and mental-health assessment/treatment and random drug screens; Mother completed very little of the plan and often failed to engage or respond to social workers.
- Visitation was sporadic: Mother did not visit for a 90+ day period after removal and thereafter attended only a few sessions; the children experienced behavioral issues related to inconsistent contact.
- CCDCFS moved in Apr. 2015 to modify temporary custody to permanent custody; hearings were held in 2015–2016, with trial in March 2016; GAL and social worker recommended permanent custody.
- Trial court found (1) reasonable efforts by CCDCFS, (2) the children were abandoned, (3) Mother failed to remedy removal conditions or comply with the case plan, and (4) permanent custody to CCDCFS was in the children’s best interests. Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (CCDCFS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether agency made reasonable efforts to reunify | Mother: CCDCFS failed to make required reasonable efforts and did not provide an adequate case plan | CCDCFS: developed and court‑approved case plan, provided services and monitoring; Mother largely refused to engage | Court: CCDCFS made reasonable efforts; findings supported by record |
| Whether case plan was adequate to reunify | Mother: case plan was insufficiently developed to help reunify | CCDCFS: case plan targeted substance‑abuse and mental‑health issues and was discussed/approved in court | Court: plan was developed/approved; Mother failed to comply |
| Whether grant of permanent custody was against the weight of the evidence | Mother: no abandonment; children could be placed with her; permanent custody not shown as best interest | CCDCFS/GAL: Mother failed to visit, engage, or remedy conditions; children need permanency | Court: competent, credible evidence supports abandonment, inability to place within reasonable time, and best‑interest finding |
| Whether court erred by not expressly discussing each best‑interest factor | Mother: trial entries lacked detailed discussion of children’s wishes and relationships | CCDCFS: statute does not require exhaustive journalization; record and GAL explain considerations | Court: no reversible error; record sufficiently supports consideration of statutorily required factors |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (statute on "reasonable efforts" does not apply to permanent-custody hearings but agency remains obligated to make reasonable efforts)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (Ohio 1990) (parental liberty interest in child rearing is fundamental but not absolute)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (Ohio 1979) (child welfare is the controlling principle over parental rights)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (appellate review defers to trial court when competent, credible evidence supports its decision)
- Bechtol v. Bechtol, 49 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 1990) (trial court’s credibility assessments in custody matters are entitled to deference)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 2004) (time between filing of permanent-custody motion and hearing does not count toward "12 of 22 months" custody calculation)