In re L.D.
2019 Ohio 4990
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- L.D., born with amphetamine/phentermine in his system, was removed after mother’s boyfriend overdosed at home and mother admitted methamphetamine, opiate, and marijuana use. JFS obtained interim custody March 28, 2017.
- L.D. was adjudicated abused and dependent and placed in JFS temporary custody on June 29, 2017; JFS filed for permanent custody on January 22, 2019.
- Mother was incarcerated May–September 2017, completed some case-plan tasks (parenting classes, maintained housing and employment), and had generally appropriate supervised visits but missed some.
- Mother failed to complete drug-treatment, missed multiple court-ordered toxicology screens, and admitted methamphetamine use as recently as January 2019.
- Two relatives filed for custody but their motions were dismissed for nonappearance; father made no visits and did not comply with court orders.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | JFS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether JFS proved by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody should be awarded | JFS failed to meet the clear-and-convincing evidentiary burden | Evidence of bonding with foster family, mother’s continued drug use, incomplete treatment, custody history, and need for legally secure placement | Affirmed: overall C&C standard met because sufficient factors supported awarding permanent custody to JFS |
| Whether the statutory 12‑in‑22 custody condition (R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d)) was met | Mother likely disputed timing/calculation | JFS showed L.D. was in its custody for the relevant 12 months within 22 months period | Met: court found the 12‑in‑22 condition satisfied |
| Whether R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) best‑interest factors supported permanent custody, including child’s wishes (D(1)(b)) | Mother argued insufficient evidence (no testimony as to child’s wishes) | JFS relied on bonding with foster family, child’s adjustment, custodial history, and GAL/attorney recommendations | Mixed: court found (a), (c), (d) supported; (b) (child’s wishes) not supported by C&C but child’s young age made wishes minor |
| Whether R.C. 2151.414(E)(9) (repeated drug‑risk and refusal of treatment) was satisfied | Mother argued no evidence of multiple refusals/enrollments and dropouts to show two or more rejections/refusals | JFS pointed to prenatal exposure, overdose incident, mother’s admission of recent use, and failure to complete treatment | Not met: court held no C&C evidence that mother rejected/refused treatment two or more times |
| Whether R.C. 2151.414(E)(10) (abandonment) and (E)(14) (unwillingness to provide necessities) applied | Mother contested findings of abandonment/unwillingness | JFS showed father’s noncontact and lack of visitation; argued mother did not financially support child while case pending | E(10) (father abandonment) met as to father; E(14) not supported as to mother (no C&C evidence mother was unwilling to provide necessities) |
Key Cases Cited
- Cross v. Ledford, 120 N.E.2d 118 (Ohio 1954) (defines clear-and-convincing standard)
- In re Cunningham, 391 N.E.2d 1034 (Ohio 1979) (termination of parental rights permissible when necessary for child’s welfare)
- In re Fassinger, 330 N.E.2d 431 (Ohio 1975) (termination as last resort principle)
- In re C.W., 818 N.E.2d 1176 (Ohio 2004) (defines start/stop points for the 12‑in‑22 custody calculation)
- In re C.F., 862 N.E.2d 816 (Ohio 2007) (no single best‑interest factor has heightened weight)
- Matter of K.W., 111 N.E.3d 368 (Ohio App. 2018) (explains concept of a "legally secure permanent placement")