In re M.R.
2019 Ohio 3601
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Lucas County Children Services Board (the agency) removed two children (May.R., age 2; Mak.R., 10 months) after police reports of parental intoxication, a dirty home, and father’s admission of crack use; temporary custody to agency was ordered in late 2017.
- Parents stipulated to neglect and to individualized reunification case plans addressing domestic violence, substance abuse, mental health, and housing.
- Over ~14 months the parents repeatedly failed to complete required services, had unstable housing (eight residences for mother), intermittent visitation, and incidents including DUIs, positive drug test for father, and recurring domestic-violence events.
- Agency moved for permanent custody in August 2018; a dispositional hearing was held January 11, 2019; the juvenile court granted permanent custody to the agency on Feb. 6, 2019, finding clear and convincing evidence under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), (2), (4) and B(1)(a), and that permanent custody was in the children’s best interests.
- Both parents appealed, arguing (1) the court should have continued or extended temporary custody to allow more time for case-plan completion, (2) the permanent-custody finding was not supported by clear and convincing evidence, and (3) (mother) that comments encouraging her to separate from father amounted to plain error/pro-marriage policy violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Continuance / extension of temporary custody | Agency: no extension requested at trial; parents had long opportunity and failed to complete plans; no basis for further delay | Parents: asked for continuance or six-month extension to finish case plans, secure housing and stabilize mental health/substance treatment | Court: denial of continuance/extension not an abuse of discretion; no procedural or statutory basis shown to require extension; agency did not request extension and parents did not timely move for it |
| Sufficiency under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) (failure to remedy conditions) | Agency: parents failed continuously/repeatedly to substantially remedy conditions despite reasonable case planning and services | Parents: claimed substantial progress or completion of plans; blamed recent family deaths and logistical barriers | Court: affirmed finding by clear and convincing evidence that parents failed to remedy conditions (E)(1); competent, credible evidence supported the finding |
| Other statutory factors (E)(2) chronic mental illness/substance dependency and E(4) lack of commitment; and B(1)(a) placement cannot be made in reasonable time | Agency: parents’ mental-health, substance use, and unstable housing made reunification unreasonable within a reasonable time; children had been out of home >12 months and were thriving in placements | Parents: argued lapses mitigated by work, recent bereavements, employment constraints, and that agency did not require parenting classes | Court: found clear and convincing evidence of severe mental health/substance issues, inconsistent service engagement, lack of commitment, and inability to safely parent within a reasonable time; additional statutory factors supported permanent custody |
| Best interests and plain-error claim re: suggestions to separate/divorce | Agency: testimony merely noted parental relationship issues and urged independent compliance with plans; no recommendation to divorce | Mother: argued caseworkers/GAL implied she should leave father to improve reunification chances and that was plain error contrary to public policy | Court: no plain error — witnesses did not advocate divorce and no finding rested on such a suggestion; best-interest findings (children thriving, need for stability) supported permanent custody |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (Ohio 1981) (standard for reviewing denial of continuance/abuse-of-discretion framework)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (definition and contours of abuse of discretion)
- State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (Ohio 1980) (abuse-of-discretion discussion cited in Blakemore)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence standard)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (only one R.C. 2151.414(E) factor needed to support finding child cannot be placed with parent)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1997) (plain-error doctrine in civil appeals—rare and exceptional)
- State v. Morgan, 153 Ohio St.3d 196 (Ohio 2017) (party asserting plain error must show it affected outcome)