2023 Ohio 2071
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Mother (E.D.) had prior children removed; newborn L.R.-L. tested positive for Suboxone and oxycodone and exhibited withdrawal; mother tested positive for marijuana and oxycodone at birth.
- FCCS obtained emergency/temporary custody (July 2019); magistrate adjudicated L.R.-L. abused/neglected/dependent and made case plan an order; FCCS moved for permanent custody (Nov. 30, 2020).
- FCCS investigated kinship placements (paternal grandmother, maternal grandparents, paternal aunt, mother’s friend, paternal grandfather’s ex‑girlfriend) but declined placement largely because relatives were unable/noncompliant or because the child had bonded with foster parents.
- The Kinship Caregiver Act (R.C. 2151.4115–.4122) became effective Sept. 30, 2021, creating an agency duty to make intensive efforts to identify/engage kin and a court process to relieve that duty if specific findings are met.
- At the May 2022 permanent‑custody hearing, the court found L.R.-L. had been in FCCS custody long enough to satisfy R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) and, weighing best‑interest factors (limited parent visitation, mother’s ongoing substance‑abuse/mental‑health issues, lack of stable income, strong foster bond, prospective adoptive home), awarded permanent custody to FCCS.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (FCCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FCCS failed to comply with the Kinship Caregiver Act by not making "intensive efforts" to identify/engage kin | FCCS rejected viable kin (mother’s friend and paternal grandfather’s ex‑girlfriend) in 2021 and failed to secure required court findings relieving its duty | FCCS investigated relatives/friends, had reasons to reject proposed kin (noncompliance, capacity, emotional harm to child); also timing shows Act may not have applied when evaluations occurred | Court: No reversible error — mother failed to prove Act applied at time of those evaluations; moreover permanent‑custody ruling rendered the temporary‑custody kinship question moot; assignment overruled |
| Whether the grant of permanent custody was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Mother argued she complied with parts of the case plan, loves the child, and improved stability (parenting classes, housing suitable) so permanent custody was not warranted | FCCS emphasized mother’s inconsistent visitation, continued substance use and interrupted treatment, lack of sustained mental‑health care and stable income, and child’s strong bond with prospective adoptive foster parents | Court: Held the manifest weight of the evidence supports permanent custody to FCCS under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) and best‑interest factors; assignment overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (standard for manifest‑weight review; deference to trial court credibility determinations)
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (Ohio 2008) (parents have a protected liberty interest that is not absolute; state may intervene to protect children)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (state’s broad authority to protect children from abuse/neglect)
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (Ohio 1997) (heightened procedural and substantive protections required when terminating parental rights)