In re L.R.-R.
2022 Ohio 3744
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2022Background:
- Jan 27, 2020: CCDCFS took emergency temporary custody after Mother failed to pick up the children; exam revealed injuries to L.R.-R. consistent with punishment by a hanger/belt.
- Sept 17, 2020: Xi.R.-R. adjudicated neglected; L.R.-R. adjudicated abused and neglected; CCDCFS awarded temporary custody and later obtained extensions.
- Mother was referred to parenting and domestic-violence services (Spanish-language options); she did not complete services and had minimal contact with the agency before incarceration.
- Mother pleaded guilty to child endangering and domestic violence against L.R.-R., was incarcerated, and was subject to a no-contact order; children remained in CCDCFS custody and bonded with their foster family.
- Father briefly cared for the children (June–Sept 2021) but returned them due to behavioral issues; foster parents seek to adopt.
- March 16, 2022: Juvenile court terminated Mother’s parental rights and granted CCDCFS permanent custody; Mother appealed claiming the decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination of Mother's parental rights was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Mother: the permanent-custody award is not supported by clear and convincing evidence | CCDCFS: evidence shows >12 months agency custody, Mother failed case plan, convicted and incarcerated, placement with Mother unsafe | Affirmed — record contains competent, credible evidence supporting permanent custody under clear-and-convincing standard |
| Whether R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) (12+ months in agency custody) was met | Mother: (implicit) challenge to sufficiency of custody period | CCDCFS: children in agency custody from Jan 27, 2020 through hearing (over 23 months) | Held — statutory 12+ months of a consecutive 22-month period satisfied |
| Whether best-interest factors (R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) and (D)(2)) supported permanent custody | Mother: (part of manifest-weight claim) best-interest factors do not favor termination | CCDCFS/GAL: children bonded to foster family, thriving, GAL recommends permanent custody, no suitable relative placement | Held — court found D(1) factors (bonding, custodial history, need for stable placement) and all D(2) elements met; permanent custody in children’s best interests |
| Whether denial of father’s continuance violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) | Father (via counsel): requested continuance because he was in military basic training and could not attend | State: characterized father’s service as voluntary and opposed continuance | Concurrence noted the trial court erred under SCRA and that the judgment could be collaterally attacked during father’s service; majority nonetheless affirmed on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Trickey v. Trickey, 158 Ohio St. 9 (recognizing trial-court advantage from observing witnesses and deference on discretionary findings)
- In re Awkal, 95 Ohio App.3d 309 (trial-court discretion in permanent-custody determinations warrants respect)
- In re Adoption of W.C., 189 Ohio App.3d 386 (discussing SCRA purposes and protection for servicemembers in civil proceedings)
- Brandt v. Weyant (In re Brandt), 437 B.R. 294 (SCRA principles and suspension of proceedings to protect servicemembers)
- Fazio v. Fazio, 71 N.E.3d 157 (SCRA should be liberally construed to protect servicemembers)