2023 Ohio 96
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background:
- Guernsey County Children Services (GCCS) began involvement in 2018; children M.K., E.K., and A.K. were removed and adjudicated dependent in late 2020 and placed in residential treatment due to severe behavioral and sexualized conduct.
- Each child has significant mental-health diagnoses and intensive treatment needs; placements together were unsafe and they remain in separate residential facilities receiving medication and therapy.
- Mother (A.P.) has serious mental-health and cognitive limitations (schizoaffective disorder, borderline traits, borderline intellectual ability; tested with low problem-solving capacity) and a history of substance disorders; experts concluded she has limited ability to internalize and apply complex parenting skills.
- GCCS provided services, a case plan (drug/mental-health assessments, parenting classes, supervised visitation, etc.), and referrals (including an expensive specialized parenting program Mother could not attend); visitation was later suspended on safety grounds.
- GCCS moved for permanent custody (filed Feb. 25, 2022); the juvenile court found GCCS made reasonable efforts, determined the children could not be placed with parents within a reasonable time, found termination in the children’s best interests, and granted permanent custody to GCCS.
- Mother appealed, arguing (1) GCCS failed to make reasonable efforts and therefore the permanent-custody motion should not have proceeded, and (2) the court abused its discretion in assessing the children’s best interests under R.C. § 2151.414(D); the appellate court affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GCCS failed to make reasonable efforts so motion for permanent custody should not proceed | A.P.: GCCS should have provided/financed the specialized parenting program (cost/transportation hindered access) and halted visitation, undermining reunification | GCCS: Agency provided reasonable case planning and services; specialized program cost/transport barrier did not make efforts unreasonable; children’s safety warranted suspension of visitation | Court: No abuse of discretion; agency’s efforts were reasonable and diligent under circumstances; parenting program access would not have overcome Mother’s cognitive/mental-health limitations |
| Whether the juvenile court properly considered children’s best interests under R.C. § 2151.414(D) | A.P.: With necessary services (specialized parenting class), family could reunify; natural parent preference outweighs other factors | GCCS/CASA/GAL: Children need legally secure, structured therapeutic placements; parents lack insight/ability to meet children’s complex needs | Court: Clear and convincing evidence supports that placement with parents is not in a reasonable time and that permanent custody to GCCS serves children’s best interests; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (standard: appellate review for abuse of discretion)
- Trickey v. Trickey, 158 Ohio St. 9 (Ohio 1953) (trial-court factfinding and deference on credibility)
- Bechtol v. Bechtol, 49 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 1990) (trial court resolves credibility disputes)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (Ohio 1990) (parental custody is a fundamental liberty interest)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (parental rights are fundamental)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (standard for terminating parental rights requires heightened protections)
- In re Smith, 77 Ohio App.3d 1 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991) (permanent termination compared to severe penalties; protections required)
- In re Estate of Haynes, 25 Ohio St.3d 101 (Ohio 1986) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (agency reasonable efforts relevant when court relies on R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) in permanent-custody analysis)