In re M.J.
2015 Ohio 127
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- GCCS filed dependency actions after J.J. (born Feb 2011) and M.J. (born Aug 2012) were born with safety concerns: maternal drug use, parental instability, and domestic violence involving father C.J.
- Protective orders and criminal arrests (including multiple incarcerations of C.J. for probation violations and domestic-violence/protection-order violations) repeatedly disrupted parental contact and case-plan participation.
- Both parents had documented drug use (marijuana) and limited engagement with reunification services; mother A.H. intermittently saw the children and did not appeal the termination.
- C.J. had little to no financial support history for the children, unstable housing, missed treatment appointments, and intermittent visitation (long gaps >90 days); some visits were ended by his re-incarceration for domestic violence.
- GCCS moved for permanent custody in November 2013; the GAL and foster parents supported permanent placement and prospective adoption by the foster mother.
- Trial court found (1) abandonment by both parents, (2) children could not be placed with parents within a reasonable time, and (3) permanent custody to GCCS was in the children’s best interest; Second District Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (GCCS) | Defendant's Argument (C.J.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether children were abandoned under R.C. 2151.011(C) | C.J. failed to maintain contact/visits >90 days despite opportunity after release; the statutory presumption applies | C.J. said agency refused/sought to block visitation and thus rebutted abandonment | Court: Abandonment finding supported by clear and convincing evidence; C.J. did not rebut presumption |
| Whether children could be placed with father within a reasonable time (R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)/(E)) | Agency: father failed to remedy conditions despite case planning; continued drug use and contact with mother make placement unrealistic | C.J.: post-release compliance, employment, and relative housing (grandmother) show potential placement | Court: Father failed continuously and repeatedly to remedy conditions; placement within reasonable time unlikely |
| Whether grant of permanent custody was in children’s best interests (R.C. 2151.414(D)) | GCCS: children bonded to foster family, thriving, need legally secure placement; GAL recommended custody to agency | C.J.: claimed bond with children and capability to provide secure home | Court: Best-interest factors weigh for agency; foster placement is stable and adoption-ready |
| Manifest weight / sufficiency of evidence supporting termination | Evidence (caseworker testimony, GAL, foster parent) satisfies clear-and-convincing standard for abandonment, inability to place, and best interests | C.J.: challenges factual findings and contends agency interference with visitation | Court: Findings supported by competent, credible evidence; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (1978) (some competent, credible evidence standard for appellate review)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (1984) (deference to factfinder’s ability to observe witness demeanor)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (definition and nature of manifest-weight review)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for reviewing whether clear-and-convincing evidence supports trial findings)
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (1996) (one R.C. 2151.414(E) factor is sufficient to support finding child cannot be placed with parent within reasonable time)