In re M.B.
2014 Ohio 5009
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Butler County Children Services filed neglect/dependency complaints (Mar. 2012) after concerns about mother Lorna B.’s parenting of infant daughter (failure to thrive, dirty clothes, unsafe feeding practices) and longstanding concerns about her 12-year-old son (poor hygiene, cognitive delays, educational neglect).
- Mother stipulated to dependency findings (May 25, 2012); children remained in agency temporary custody; agency moved for permanent custody (May 28, 2013).
- Caseworkers and service providers documented repeated unsafe practices (feeding expired food, improper infant feeding, leaving food out), poor housing stability (multiple moves, eviction), and mother’s personal hygiene issues.
- Psychological and educational evaluations diagnosed mother with borderline intellectual functioning and major depressive disorder; providers found she learned material but failed to apply it consistently and did not complete recommended skills training successfully.
- Children (in foster care ~2 years) made substantial gains: daughter recovered from failure to thrive and met milestones; son improved hygiene, nutrition, and school performance; foster mother sought to adopt and would facilitate ongoing contact.
- Juvenile court found children had been in agency custody >12 of 22 months, concluded statutory best-interest factors favored agency custody, and granted permanent custody; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether granting permanent custody of daughter was supported by clear and convincing evidence / against manifest weight | Mother: she made sufficient progress, maintained housing/employment, bond with child, can read cues as child ages | Agency/Court: mother repeatedly failed to apply learned parenting skills, residence unsafe for infant, ongoing inability to meet developmental/nutritional needs | Affirmed: evidence supported finding permanent custody in child’s best interest |
| Whether granting permanent custody of son was supported by clear and convincing evidence / against manifest weight | Mother: improved nutrition for son, bond and son’s wish to return, she addressed concerns | Agency/Court: son’s deficits stemmed from environment; mother had not remedied hygiene/parenting/educational support problems despite services | Affirmed: permanency for son required; mother unable to provide legally secure placement |
| Whether statutory test under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) satisfied (12-of-22-months and best interest) | Mother: argued placement with her remains viable within reasonable time | Agency/Court: children were in temporary custody >12 months; no suitable relative placement; best-interest factors support termination | Affirmed: statutory time-in-custody met and best-interest factors supported permanent custody |
| Whether further services or evaluations could change outcome | Mother: additional time/services would allow improvement | Agency/Court: multiple evaluations and services produced no durable change; no identified treatment likely to achieve required parenting capacity | Affirmed: court found no identified program likely to succeed; permanent custody appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (state must prove parental-rights termination by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Rodgers, 138 Ohio App.3d 510 (Ohio Ct. App.) (appellate review of juvenile permanent-custody findings limited to conflicts in evidence)