In re L.H.
2017 Ohio 8472
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Mother gave birth to twins on Feb. 2, 2016; appellant Father is biological father of one twin, L.H.; CSB obtained emergency temporary custody ten days after birth and filed dependency complaint.
- Father contacted CSB in May 2016 to pursue paternity; genetic testing in August 2016 established paternity and Father was added to the case plan.
- Father had criminal charges (trafficking/possession of heroin; weapons while under disability) and case-plan objectives included resolving criminal matters, drug treatment, visitation, and demonstrating housing/employment stability.
- Father physically visited L.H. only three times over the case period, missed multiple scheduled visits, failed to maintain regular contact with the caseworker, and did not substantiate claims of frequent video contact.
- Mother voluntarily surrendered parental rights immediately before the permanent custody hearing; CSB moved for permanent custody as to Father and the juvenile court awarded permanent custody to CSB and terminated parental rights; Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether L.H. could not or should not be placed with Father within a reasonable time (R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) / E(4)) | Father: court erred — child could be placed with him; he asserts visitation attempts and contact | CSB: Father showed lack of commitment (missed visits, poor communication, failed case-plan compliance) and thus E(4) factor is met | Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supported finding under R.C. 2151.414(E)(4); judgment not against manifest weight of the evidence |
| Whether the court abused discretion by denying a six-month extension of temporary custody | Father: trial court should have granted a six-month extension | CSB: permanent custody is in the child’s best interest and extension not warranted | Affirmed — Father did not challenge the court’s best-interest finding; denial of extension upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (Ohio 1985) (defines clear-and-convincing standard)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (describes clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (standard for reviewing manifest-weight challenges; deference to factfinder)
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (Ohio 1996) (permanent custody requires both statutory prongs)