In re L.M.B.
2020 Ohio 2925
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Two children: L.M.B. (8) and M.A.B. (4). HCJFS obtained interim custody after parents continued to live with the children in a house condemned by the board of health; children were adjudicated neglected and dependent in Aug. 2017.
- Children initially placed with maternal great-aunt; removed to a foster family in Feb. 2018 and remained there through trial.
- Parents were ordered to complete random drug screens, substance-abuse and mental-health treatment, parenting classes, homemaker services, and domestic-violence programming. Both failed to complete most services, missed many drug screens, and tested positive for cocaine (Mother twice, Father once).
- Parents’ visit participation was uneven: relatively consistent at the Family Nurturing Center but sporadic for HCJFS-supervised visits; Mother admitted missing visits due to relapse.
- Housing remained unsafe and unstable (condemned home, then paternal grandmother’s house with hazards); parents falsely represented housing plans to the caseworker.
- HCJFS moved for permanent custody on Sept. 4, 2018; the magistrate and juvenile court granted permanent custody to HCJFS. Parents appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) (the "12 of 22" rule) applied | The 22‑month period did not run until after the permanent‑custody trial, so the agency lacked the required 12 months within a consecutive 22‑month period | Same challenge implicitly: agency didn’t meet the 12/22 temporal requirement | Court: 12 months accrued (beginning 60 days after removal on Aug. 21, 2017) before HCJFS moved for permanent custody; R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) satisfied. |
| Whether permanent custody was in the children’s best interests under R.C. 2151.414(D) | Parents argued strong parent–child bond, consistent visits (at FNC), and ability to remedy housing/safety issues favored reunification | HCJFS/GAL pointed to ongoing substance abuse, noncompliance with case plan (including treatment and parenting classes), unsafe/unstable housing, and children’s bond with foster family | Court: Best‑interest factors weighed for HCJFS; clear and convincing evidence supported permanent custody. |
| Whether the juvenile court’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence (Father) | Argued the court lost its way resolving conflicts and improperly weighed evidence in favor of HCJFS | HCJFS maintained decision was supported by record of noncompliance, drug use, unstable housing, and children’s welfare in foster care | Court: No manifest‑weight error; decision supported by substantial, clear‑and‑convincing evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- 161 Ohio St. 469 (Cross v. Ledford) (defines the clear and convincing standard) (1954).
- 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (In re K.H.) (applies the clear‑and‑convincing standard in parental‑rights termination cases) (2008).
- 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (In re C.W.) (clarifies that the 12 months must accrue before the agency files a motion for permanent custody under the 12/22 rule) (2004).