In re M.H.-L.T.
2017 Ohio 7825
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- WCCS removed 11-year-old M.H.-L.T. from her parents' home in May 2014 after reports of starvation, deprivation, physical and sexual abuse, and animal cruelty; mother was seriously ill and the child expressed fear of her father.
- The child alleged sexual abuse (referenced multiple times in counseling and caseworker interviews); counselor diagnosed PTSD and found sexual behavior inventory scores consistent with probable sexual abuse.
- Child has lived continuously with the same foster family since removal, is stabilized on medication and therapy, and foster parents are willing to adopt.
- Appellee (WCCS) placed the child in temporary custody, then moved for permanent custody after the child had been in agency custody >12 of the prior 22 months.
- Father (R.T.) completed parenting classes and obtained a neuropsychological evaluation (Dr. Dunn) but did not complete the mental-health evaluation required by the case plan, repeatedly limited releases, and declined some agency requests; caseworkers testified the Dr. Dunn evaluation did not address family-safety concerns.
- Juvenile court granted WCCS permanent custody (R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d)), finding permanent custody was in the child’s best interest and that WCCS used reasonable efforts; father appealed raising weight-of-evidence and ineffective-assistance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father/R.T.) | Defendant's Argument (WCCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody finding (best interest) was against manifest weight | Father: He substantially complied with case plan (parenting class; Dr. Dunn eval) and can provide a legally secure permanent placement; WCCS failed to use reasonable efforts | WCCS: Child needs legally secure placement; father failed to complete required mental-health evaluation and did not resolve safety concerns; child is unsafe at home and bonded to foster family | Court: Affirmed — substantial, credible evidence supports best-interest finding; father did not show legally secure placement or sufficient case-plan compliance; WCCS used reasonable efforts |
| Whether R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) threshold (12 of 22 months) was satisfied | Father: did not dispute the 12/22 factual threshold | WCCS: Threshold met and permits inquiry into best interest | Court: Threshold satisfied; court properly considered best-interest factors |
| Whether WCCS made reasonable efforts to prevent/terminate removal | Father: Agency failed to ensure he understood/obtained correct mental-health evaluation and otherwise should have done more | WCCS: Provided case plan, visitation, counseling; emphasized mental-health evals and the father impeded assessment by withholding releases and being dishonest to evaluator | Court: Reasonable efforts were shown; prior reasonable-efforts findings existed and WCCS met standard |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to hearsay statements | Father: Trial counsel should have objected to multiple hearsay statements; their admission prejudiced outcome | WCCS: Counselor’s testimony fit a hearsay exception and other admissible evidence independently supported custody | Court: Even assuming deficient performance, father failed to show prejudice — ample other admissible evidence supported permanent custody; ineffective-assistance claim rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (clarifies manifest-weight/clear-and-convincing standard for civil findings)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (interpreting R.C. 2151.419 and best-interest analysis in permanent custody proceedings)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Trickey v. Trickey, 158 Ohio St. 9 (Ohio 1952) (deference to trial court in child-custody decisions due to trial court’s superior opportunity to observe parties)