2018 Ohio 3712
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Parents Lola Stewart and Thomas Morrison had three children (T.M., L.M., and newborn L.M.M.) removed due to "deplorable" home conditions (infestation, filth, animal feces); agency took temporary custody and submitted case plans aimed at reunification.
- Parents stipulated that T.M. and L.M. were neglected and L.M.M. was dependent; agency's case plans were approved and incorporated by the juvenile court.
- Agency later moved for permanent custody; the GAL recommended permanent custody for all three children.
- At the permanent-custody hearing, agency caseworkers testified about repeated removals, photographs of home conditions, efforts to identify services, and provision of home-improvement lists; agency explored but could not obtain in‑home housekeeping or life‑skills services locally.
- Trial court found the agency made reasonable efforts toward reunification and granted permanent custody to the agency; parents appealed arguing the agency failed to make good‑faith/ADA reasonable‑modification efforts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the agency failed to make "good faith"/reasonable efforts to reunify (including ADA reasonable‑modification claim) | Stewart/Morrison: agency failed to modify rules/policies under the ADA and did not make reasonable efforts to reunify | Agency/juvenile court: case plans were prepared, caseworker provided instructions, explored services and financial help, and reasonable efforts/findings were made and documented | Court: No error; trial court properly found reasonable efforts. ADA claim not pleaded below and, in any event, ADA noncompliance is not a defense to permanent‑custody action |
| Whether trial court was required to make a reasonable‑efforts finding at permanent‑custody hearing | Stewart/Morrison: trial court should have re‑made reasonable‑efforts determination at permanent‑custody hearing | Agency: statute and case law require reasonable‑efforts finding at earlier adjudicatory/ dispositional stages; court had already approved case plans and made findings | Court: Trial court had already made reasonable‑efforts findings in prior dispositional entries; it also reiterated such findings in permanent‑custody entries — adequate under law |
| Whether evidence supported finding that child cannot be placed with parents/that permanent custody is in child’s best interest | Stewart/Morrison: argued agency did not do enough to remediate underlying conditions | Agency: multiple documented failed attempts to remedy home conditions despite instruction and assistance; GAL recommended permanent custody | Court: Clear and convincing evidence supported statutory findings and best‑interest determination; permanent custody affirmed |
| Whether ADA provides a defense to permanent‑custody termination | Stewart/Morrison: alleged agency failed to provide ADA reasonable modifications | Agency: ADA enforcement is via separate administrative/remedial process and is not a defense to termination | Court: ADA noncompliance is not a defense to permanent custody; parents waived by not raising ADA below and plain‑error standard would not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (recognition of parental liberty interest)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (parental rights require heightened proof before termination)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (reasonable‑efforts determination required at adjudicatory/dispositional stages; scope of reasonable‑efforts inquiry)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (plain‑error standard in civil appeals)