2018 Ohio 5047
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- BCDJFS removed three children from Mother after concerns about unstable housing, untreated mental-health issues, poor school attendance, and alleged abuse by Mother's then-boyfriend; children were adjudicated dependent and placed in foster care.
- Mother received reunification-oriented services (parenting programs, mental-health counseling, visitation) but engagement was sporadic; she lived at multiple residences, had intermittent employment, and intermittently took prescribed psychiatric medication.
- Children briefly returned to Mother's custody for ~5 weeks in Aug. 2017 but were removed again due to missed medical/school appointments, lack of health insurance/pediatric care, Mother’s aggressive behavior, and worsening child behavioral issues.
- The foster family provided stable care, met medical/psychiatric needs, and expressed a desire to adopt; children’s behavior improved in foster care and they remained bonded to one another and to foster parents.
- Juvenile court granted permanent custody to BCDJFS after finding (1) children had been in BCDJFS temporary custody 12+ months of a consecutive 22-month period and (2) permanent custody was in the children’s best interests; Mother appealed but failed to lodge specific objections to the magistrate’s findings.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | BCDJFS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether grant of permanent custody was supported by clear and convincing evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence | Mother argued the juvenile court erred and the evidence did not clearly and convincingly show permanent custody was in the children’s best interest | BCDJFS argued Mother failed to remedy the problems that led to removal despite extensive services; children needed a legally secure, stable placement and had been in agency custody long enough | Court affirmed: mother waived some objections by failing to file specific objections but, on the merits, evidence supported permanent custody by clear and convincing evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (parental rights to raise children are fundamental)
- Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1923) (parental liberty interest in child-rearing)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (state must prove termination standards by clear and convincing evidence)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (Ohio 1979) (state authority to remove children when necessary for their welfare)