2019 Ohio 5367
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background:
- BCDJFS filed for dependency and temporary custody of M.A. in March 2017; juvenile court adjudicated M.A. dependent in June 2017 and placed him in foster care.
- A reunification case plan required father (appellant) to complete substance‑abuse/mental‑health assessment, treatment, random drug screens, stable housing/employment, and parenting education.
- Father only partially complied: he completed assessments, sporadically engaged in services, missed or stopped treatment, tested positive on 12 of 13 drug screens (amphetamine/methamphetamine most often), was intermittently incarcerated, and missed/suspended supervised visits.
- BCDJFS moved for permanent custody in October 2018; a magistrate granted permanent custody in March 2019, the juvenile court adopted the decision, and father appealed.
- The juvenile court found R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) satisfied (child in temporary custody >12 months of a 22‑month period) and that awarding permanent custody was in M.A.’s best interest under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1); it also found R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) (parent failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy conditions) applied.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court erred in granting permanent custody for lack of clear and convincing evidence (best‑interest determination) | Father: BCDJFS did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in M.A.'s best interest | BCDJFS: Satisfied statutory two‑part test—child was in temporary custody >12 of 22 months and best‑interest factors favor permanent custody (stable foster placement, father’s ongoing substance use, failure to remedy conditions) | Court: Affirmed; clear and convincing evidence supported best‑interest finding and permanent custody award |
| Whether the permanent custody decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Father: Trial court’s judgment is against manifest weight; conflicting evidence about housing, services, and engagement | BCDJFS: Credible evidence (drug tests, service noncompletion, missed visits, foster caregiver adoption intent) supports findings; credibility determinations for factfinder | Court: Not against manifest weight; factfinder did not lose its way—findings sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (parental‑rights termination requires proof by clear and convincing evidence)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (manifest‑weight review standard and appellate deference to factfinder)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (2006) (no single best‑interest factor controls; court must consider statutory list)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (1979) (parental interests subordinate to child’s best interest in termination proceedings)