In re M.H.
2017 Ohio 1110
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mother Wanda Hill's two children (M.H., b.2001; S.H., b.2003) were placed in Fairfield County Child Protective Services (FCCPS) custody in March 2015; dependency adjudications followed and temporary custody remained with FCCPS.
- FCCPS later moved for permanent custody (filed March 21, 2016); a magistrate conducted a permanent-custody trial in June 2016 and recommended permanent custody to FCCPS; the GAL also recommended permanent custody.
- Magistrate issued a detailed 19‑page decision; mother filed a brief, non‑specific objection; the trial court overruled the objection for lack of specificity under Civ.R. 53/Juv.R. 40 and adopted the magistrate’s ruling.
- Mother appealed, raising (1) that permanent custody was not in the children’s best interests and (2) that the children could be placed with her within a reasonable time or should be placed with her.
- Trial-level concerns about mother: ongoing substance abuse (including heroin), unstable housing/financial problems, mental health issues, inconsistent engagement in treatment; she had some compliance (drug screens, counseling participation, supervised visitation) but also recent jail time and multiple residences.
- The appellate court reviewed under a plain‑error standard (because the trial court found mother’s objections insufficiently specific) and affirmed the trial court’s grant of permanent custody to FCCPS.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hill) | Defendant's Argument (FCCPS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether children could not be placed with mother within a reasonable time or should not be placed with mother (R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) and (E) predicates) | Mother argued partial compliance with case plan (stable housing since Jan 2016, disability benefits, drug screens, counseling, supervised visitation, paid support) and that risk factors were minor or transient | FCCPS relied on mother’s substance abuse, housing instability, missed treatment appointments, recent incarceration, and overall risk to children | Affirmed: court found no plain error in concluding the children could not/should not be placed with mother within a reasonable time; mother’s partial compliance insufficient |
| Whether granting permanent custody was in the children’s best interests (R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)) | Mother argued bonds with children, their expressed wishes to return, supervised visitation, and lack of prior lengthy CPS history supported reunification | FCCPS and GAL emphasized children’s need for stable, legally secure placement, caseworker concerns, and recommendations for permanent custody | Affirmed: court held no plain error in finding permanent custody served children’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Friedland v. Djukic, 191 Ohio App.3d 278 (8th Dist. 2010) (plain‑error standard in civil appeals requires an obvious and prejudicial error that would materially undermine public confidence in proceedings)