2021 Ohio 510
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- L.S., born March 22, 2008, had prior juvenile custody involvement from 2017 due to Mother’s incarceration and the child’s behavioral/mental-health issues; reunified with Mother in November 2019 under protective supervision.
- In February 2020 L.S. was removed after Mother’s whereabouts were unknown and L.S. witnessed Mother’s roommate overdose and die; CCDCFS filed for permanent custody.
- CCDCFS’s case plan required Mother to complete substance-abuse treatment, psychological evaluation, parenting classes, random drug screens, and mental-health treatment; Mother completed some services but had a recent positive marijuana test and admitted a cocaine relapse when she was missing.
- L.S. consistently refused visitation and family counseling, told the guardian ad litem she did not wish to return to Mother, and had an extensive custodial history including placement in group care.
- The juvenile court found under R.C. 2151.414(E) that (13) Mother’s repeated incarceration and (16) a significant parent/child conflict applied, and under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) that permanent custody to CCDCFS was in L.S.’s best interest.
- Mother appealed, arguing the state failed to present clear and convincing evidence to support permanent custody and termination of parental rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the record contains clear and convincing evidence to award permanent custody to the agency | Mother: juvenile court abused discretion; evidence was insufficient (she substantially complied with services) | CCDCFS: evidence showed child not placeable with Mother within reasonable time (incarceration history, relapse, absence) and best-interest factors favor permanency | Court affirmed: competent, credible, clear-and-convincing evidence supports permanent custody |
| Whether granting permanent custody was in the child’s best interest under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) | Mother: child’s stated refusal to reunify is unreliable; Mother had largely complied and offered a potential permanent home | CCDCFS: child lacks bond with Mother, refuses reunification, has lengthy custodial history, needs stable legally secure placement | Court held juvenile court did not abuse discretion; best-interest factors (child’s wishes, custodial history, lack of relatives, need for stability) support permanent custody |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (standard for terminating parental rights)
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (parental custody as an essential civil right)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (parental liberty interest)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse-of-discretion standard)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (requirement to consider all best-interest factors)
- In re Wise, 96 Ohio App.3d 619 (permanent custody appropriate when necessary for child's welfare)
- In re C.C., 187 Ohio App.3d 365 (case-plan compliance alone not dispositive)