In re M.
2017 Ohio 1431
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- HCJFS first obtained custody of children in 2009; the juvenile court returned custody to mother in 2012 after services, but children were removed again in 2013 when mother left them home alone and later was convicted of child endangerment.
- Temporary custody to HCJFS continued, with reunification efforts; a newborn (H.H.) in 2015 tested positive for THC and was placed with a relative caregiver immediately after birth.
- L.M. remained in foster care with severe behavioral problems and multiple placements; HCJFS sought permanent custody of L.M. in February 2015.
- R.R. was placed with his paternal grandmother (J.D.) in North Carolina and improved markedly; J.D. petitioned for legal custody. H.H. was placed with T.P., who already had custody of two of mother’s other children; T.P. petitioned for legal custody.
- Mother had inconsistent visitation, ongoing substance-abuse and impulse-control issues, and only partial progress in services; the guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody for L.M.
- The magistrate recommended (and the juvenile court adopted) permanent custody of L.M. to HCJFS and legal custody of R.R. to J.D. and H.H. to T.P.; mother appealed arguing the rulings were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether granting permanent custody of L.M. to HCJFS was supported by clear and convincing evidence | Mother: she made progress, had housing and employment; court erred in terminating parental rights | HCJFS: mother failed to remedy removal conditions, inconsistent visits, ongoing substance/impulse problems; L.M. needs permanence | Court: affirmed; clear and convincing evidence supported E.R.C. findings and best-interest factors favor permanent custody |
| Whether awarding legal custody of R.R. to J.D. was appropriate | Mother: custody award lacked competent, credible support | J.D./HCJFS: R.R. was thriving in J.D.’s care; placement served the child’s best interest | Court: affirmed; discretionary best-interest determination supported by competent, credible evidence |
| Whether awarding legal custody of H.H. to T.P. was appropriate | Mother: award not supported by evidence | T.P./HCJFS: child placed with siblings, thriving, caregiver willing to facilitate visitation | Court: affirmed; custody to T.P. served the child’s best interest and was supported by evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (Ohio 1985) (defines the clear-and-convincing evidence standard)
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 2004) (describes statutory bases for permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (sets the standard for reviewing whether a judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (trial court is best positioned to weigh evidence and assess witness credibility)