2022 Ohio 529
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Mother (J.G.) has four children; the two youngest, L.G. (b. 2018) and W.W. (b. 2019), were removed and in uninterrupted agency custody since December 31, 2019; older children were already in agency custody.
- CCDCFS alleged chronic mental‑health disorders (major depression, PTSD, mild intellectual disorder), substance use (marijuana and alcohol), and unsafe/unsanitary housing; incidents included hospitalizations, threats, and a failure-to-thrive event for W.W. while in Mother’s care.
- Agency developed a case plan requiring mental‑health treatment (trauma therapy, medication compliance), substance‑abuse assessment/treatment and random drug screens, housing improvements, and parenting education; Mother had an inconsistent engagement history and terminated her long‑time counselor after courtroom conflict.
- Juvenile court adjudicated L.G. and W.W. neglected/dependent, found R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) and (14) applied, determined permanent custody to CCDCFS was in the children’s best interest, and included written reasonable‑efforts findings under R.C. 2151.419(B).
- Mother appealed only the sufficiency of the juvenile court’s reasonable‑efforts finding, arguing the agency failed to provide or document adequate, individualized mental‑health, substance‑abuse, and housing services and monitoring.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CCDCFS made "reasonable efforts" to reunify under R.C. 2151.419 | Mother: agency did not document assessments, individualized mental‑health planning, inpatient referrals, regular drug testing, or clear housing‑fix directives | Agency: case plan addressed mental health, substance abuse and housing; services were offered over years and Mother repeatedly refused, failed to comply or terminated providers | Court: Affirmed — reasonable efforts were proven by clear and convincing evidence given the services offered, history of referrals, and Mother’s noncompliance/refusal |
| Whether a new reasonable‑efforts finding was required at the permanent custody hearing when earlier findings existed | Mother: challenges sufficiency of the permanent‑custody hearing finding | Agency: prior reasonable‑efforts findings in predispositional/adjudicatory orders obviated need for a new showing; in any event, evidence at hearing sufficed | Court: Noting precedent that earlier findings can suffice, held the juvenile court properly made and supported reasonable‑efforts findings and need not start anew |
| Whether appellate relief is available under plain‑error where Mother did not object earlier | Mother: urges reversal for lack of clear and convincing evidence (labels error "plain, reversible") | Agency: Mother failed to object earlier and did not pursue earlier findings on appeal for older children; standard is not met | Court: Rejected plain‑error claim; reviewed merits and found no reversible error — reasonable‑efforts finding supported |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (parental rights are a fundamental liberty interest subject to heightened protection)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (defines the clear and convincing evidence standard)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (explains the meaning and scope of "reasonable efforts" under Ohio law)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (child's welfare is the controlling principle in custody proceedings)
- In re Schmidt, 25 Ohio St.3d 331 (agency bears burden to prove case planning and reasonable efforts)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (plain‑error standard in Ohio civil appeals)