2022 Ohio 114
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- L.T., born May 31, 2017, was removed from Mother shortly after birth, adjudicated dependent, later returned, and removed again in Jan. 2019 due to Mother’s untreated mental-health issues and inability to meet the child’s basic needs.
- CSB placed L.T. in temporary custody, adopted a case plan requiring Mother to engage in mental-health treatment, take prescribed medications, maintain safe/stable housing, allow home access, and complete financial-management services.
- Mother engaged intermittently in counseling, diagnosed with delusional disorder/bipolar with psychotic features, exhibited paranoia, ceased some services, and demonstrated repeated noncompliance with case-plan objectives and caregiving concerns during visits.
- Father initially had custody/visitation, later was unable to provide daily care and ultimately voluntarily relinquished his parental rights before the permanent-custody hearing.
- CSB moved for permanent custody after ~10 months; juvenile court found clear-and-convincing evidence under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) that Mother failed continuously to remedy removal conditions and that permanent custody was in the child’s best interest; court denied Mother’s motions for extensions and terminated parental rights.
- Mother appealed arguing the judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence, the court erred in denying a six‑month extension, and CSB failed to use reasonable reunification efforts; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | CSB’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody termination was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Judgment was against manifest weight; Mother had made progress and reversal required | Clear-and-convincing proof showed Mother failed continuously to remedy conditions (mental health, inability to provide basic needs) and permanent custody served child’s best interest | Affirmed: court found clear-and-convincing evidence under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) and best-interest factors supported permanent custody |
| Whether juvenile court erred in denying a six-month extension of temporary custody | Mother had made sufficient case-plan progress to justify a six-month extension toward reunification | Extension not in child’s best interest; Mother had not made substantial progress nor was reunification likely within extension period | Affirmed: extension inappropriate where permanent custody is in child’s best interest and Mother lacked substantial progress |
| Whether CSB failed to use reasonable reunification efforts | Mother claimed agency did not use reasonable efforts to assist reunification | Agency had prior reasonable-efforts findings; Mother did not timely challenge them | Rejected: issue forfeited for failure to challenge earlier findings and no plain‑error argument presented |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for manifest‑weight review and presumption of deference to factfinder)
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (1996) (two‑prong permanent‑custody test under R.C. 2151.414)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (1985) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (formulation of the clear‑and‑convincing evidence standard)