2020 Ohio 1565
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- L.L. was born January 27, 2018, testing positive for opiates and cocaine; CPSU filed for emergency custody days later and was granted emergency temporary custody.
- L.L. was adjudicated abused, neglected, and dependent (March 2018) and remained in CPSU temporary custody; a GAL was appointed.
- Mother Brandy Johnson missed multiple drug screens, was hospitalized repeatedly (including open‑heart surgery in July 2018), stayed in a nursing home, then served jail time (late Nov 2018–May 2019); she had only three visits with L.L. (Feb, Mar, Sep 2018) while the child was out of the home.
- CPSU moved for permanent custody (Feb 2019); a hearing was held Aug 16, 2019; the trial court granted CPSU permanent custody on Aug 26, 2019.
- Johnson appealed, arguing (1) the permanent‑custody decision was against the manifest weight/abuse of discretion and unsupported by clear and convincing evidence, (2) CPSU failed to use reasonable efforts to reunify, and (3) Johnson did not abandon the child because gaps in contact were caused by hospitalization and incarceration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Johnson) | Defendant's Argument (CPSU) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether L.L. was "abandoned" under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(b)/R.C. 2151.011(C) | Gaps in visits were due to medical hospitalizations and incarceration and do not show intent to abandon; she contacted CPSU when able | Johnson went >90 days twice without visiting or maintaining contact and made no effort during long gaps; post‑gap resumption of contact does not rebut presumption | Court: Clear and convincing evidence supported abandonment finding (presumption not rebutted for Oct 2018–May 2019) |
| Whether CPSU used "reasonable efforts" to reunify (R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) / R.C. 2151.419) | CPSU failed to provide adequate case planning and diligent assistance to remedy conditions | Trial court previously made reasonable‑efforts findings at emergency/dispositional hearings and in a March 2019 entry; agency met obligations | Court: Prior reasonable‑efforts findings were made; even if contested, abandonment alone provided independent sufficient basis for permanent custody |
| Whether granting permanent custody was in child’s best interest (R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)) | Insufficient proof that permanent custody was in L.L.’s best interest; mother had some appropriate visits | CPSU: child bonded to foster parent, has been in same foster home since birth, kinship placements not viable, mother lacks stable housing/ongoing substance concerns, prior termination of parental rights to sibling | Court: Clear and convincing evidence supports best‑interest findings (bond to foster parent, custodial history, need for legally secure placement) |
| Whether alternative statutory ground R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) (12 of 22 months / E(1) factors) supported custody | Argued factors (E(1)) not satisfied | Trial court also made E(1) findings but not necessary given abandonment finding | Court: Did not need to rely on (a)/(E(1)) because (b) abandonment gave independent basis; any error on (a)/(E(1)) would be harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (parental‑rights termination requires clear and convincing evidence)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (parents have a fundamental liberty interest in child custody)
- Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (recognition of parental rights under Due Process)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (distinguishing reasonable‑efforts findings under R.C. 2151.419 and requiring agencies to establish reasonable efforts prior to or at permanent‑custody hearings)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (best‑interest analysis requires totality of circumstances; no single factor controls)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (standard of review for evidentiary sufficiency in parental‑rights cases)