2019 Ohio 1343
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Mother (D.B.) and Father are biological parents of L.W. (b. 2013) and S.W. (b. 2014); children entered agency custody in May 2015 and remained mostly in foster care thereafter.
- In Nov. 2017 the paternal grandmother was granted legal custody but declined to take physical custody; CCDCFS filed for permanent custody in Dec. 2017 and obtained emergency temporary custody.
- Agency alleged Mother had substance‑abuse, mental‑health, and housing problems and noted prior involuntary termination of Mother’s parental rights as to two older children.
- Mother completed some case‑plan tasks (mental‑health treatment, parenting classes, a residential program) but failed to complete intensive outpatient substance treatment, stopped attending drug screens after April 2018, lacked stable housing, and ceased regular visitation after Father’s May 2018 arrest.
- GAL and CCDCFS recommended permanent custody; trial court found children had been in agency custody 12+ of a 22‑month period and awarded permanent custody to CCDCFS.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (CCDCFS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) finding that child cannot/should not be placed with Mother within a reasonable time was supported by clear and convincing evidence | Mother argued she substantially complied with her case plan, was obtaining housing and benefits, and thus reunification was reasonably possible | Agency pointed to Mother’s incomplete substance‑abuse treatment, missed drug screens, unstable housing, inconsistent visitation, and prior involuntary termination of parental rights for siblings | Court affirmed: record supports R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) (12+ months in agency custody) and (a) — factors in R.C. 2151.414(E) show Mother failed to remedy conditions and lacked commitment |
| Whether granting permanent custody was in children’s best interests under R.C. 2151.414(D) | Mother argued her remedial efforts and bond with children weighed against severing parental rights | Agency and GAL emphasized children’s long custodial history, need for permanency, foster stability, Mother’s ongoing housing and substance issues, and prior termination regarding siblings | Court affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; best‑interest factors favor permanent custody to CCDCFS |
| Whether untimely filing of GAL report (3 days before hearing) violated Sup.R. 48 / Loc.R. 18 and required continuance or reversal | Mother argued late filing prevented adequate investigation and preparation, causing prejudice | Agency and court argued parties had opportunity to review and cross‑examine GAL; children's need for prompt permanency justified denial of continuance | Court affirmed: no demonstrated prejudice from late filing; trial court did not abuse discretion in denying continuance |
| Whether evidentiary weight/manifest weight challenge succeeds | Mother claimed termination was overly severe given partial compliance | CCDCFS pointed to persistent, unremedied risks and need for stability for young children | Court affirmed: findings supported by competent, credible evidence; not against manifest weight |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (due‑process standard and parental liberty interest)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion standard)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (no single best‑interest factor is dispositive)
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (timing for calculating 12 of 22‑month custody period)
- In re Awkal, 95 Ohio App.3d 309 (clear‑and‑convincing evidence defined)
- Cunningham v. Ohio Dept. of Human Servs., 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (child’s welfare is controlling principle)
- Lansdowne v. Beacon Journal Publishing Co., 32 Ohio St.3d 176 (scope of Rules of Superintendence as guidelines)