2019 Ohio 2305
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Mother and Father are biological parents of two medically fragile children (1-L.R., b. 2014; 2-L.R., b. 2016) who require G-tube feedings, multiple specialist appointments, and irritant‑free environments. 1-L.R. has severe renal and pulmonary conditions; 2-L.R. has cerebral palsy and ongoing feeding/respiratory needs.
- CSB obtained emergency temporary custody shortly after 2-L.R.’s birth and later both children were adjudicated dependent by parental stipulation; the children remained in agency temporary custody and were placed together in foster care.
- Case plans required parents to obtain mental health/parenting assessments, learn specialized care (including G-tube feedings), attend medical appointments, cease smoking, and maintain safe housing; multiple referrals, trainings, and in‑home services were provided but the parents repeatedly failed to demonstrate sustained, independent competency.
- The parents attended some trainings and visits but missed many medical appointments, continued exposure of the children to respiratory irritants, fed 1‑L.R. improperly at times, and showed limited understanding of the children’s medical regimens; evaluators diagnosed cognitive and personality/mental‑health issues impairing parenting capacity.
- CSB moved for permanent custody after the children had been in agency custody for at least 12 of the prior 22 months; the juvenile court awarded CSB permanent custody, finding reasonable efforts by the agency and that permanent custody was in the children’s best interest.
- Parents appealed, arguing (1) CSB failed to make reasonable reunification efforts/comply with court orders and (2) the permanent‑custody finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Ninth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Parents’ Argument | CSB’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CSB failed to use reasonable efforts to reunify and comply with court orders | CSB did not provide accessible referrals, failed to comply with orders, and earlier caseworker lapses showed lack of reasonable efforts | Agency secured services, amended case plans, provided training/referrals, and court found reasonable efforts at multiple hearings; parents stipulated to 12‑of‑22 months | Affirmed: parents forfeited challenge by not objecting to magistrate findings; stipulation to 12‑of‑22 implies reasonable efforts and appellate challenge rejected |
| Whether award of permanent custody was against the manifest weight of the evidence (best‑interest inquiry) | Parents argued they loved the children and had some training; challenged agency proof that permanency was needed | CSB showed chronic parental inability to safely and consistently meet complex medical needs, missed appointments, unsafe home factors, evaluator diagnoses, and risk of harm | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supported best‑interest finding; juvenile court did not lose its way |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (reasonable‑efforts determination at permanent‑custody hearing required only when agency hasn’t shown efforts earlier)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (standard for manifest‑weight review and deference to factfinder credibility assessments)
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (Ohio 1996) (two‑prong test for terminating parental rights: statutory grounds and best interest)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (Ohio 1985) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)