In re M.S., 2017 Ohio 6981

Two children (born 2006 and 2009) were removed in 2011 after parents stipulated to neglect based on domestic violence, unstable housing, and substance abuse. Temporary custody to C.C.D.C.F.S. followed; reunification case plans were implemented.
Protective supervision (2011–2013) ended and children returned to temporary custody in 2013 after relapse, ongoing substance abuse, domestic violence, inconsistent housing, and school absences.
C.C.D.C.F.S. sought permanent custody in 2013; the trial court awarded permanent custody in 2014. This court reversed and remanded in a prior appeal, finding insufficient clear-and-convincing evidence of best interest.
On remand C.C.D.C.F.S. filed a new motion (2015), a new GAL was appointed, and a revised case plan issued; father later died during the proceedings. A two-day trial in August 2016 resulted in permanent custody being awarded to C.C.D.C.F.S.
The court found the statutory grounds satisfied (children in agency custody for more than 12 of a consecutive 22-month period and cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time), and that clear-and-convincing evidence supported that permanent custody was in the children’s best interest given ongoing substance abuse, untreated mental-health issues, domestic-violence exposure, and the children’s therapeutic needs.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Appellee's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s grant of permanent custody is against the manifest weight of the evidence (i.e., whether clear and convincing evidence supports statutory grounds and best interest)	Appellant argued the evidence did not clearly and convincingly show termination of parental rights and awarding permanent custody was in the children’s best interest	C.C.D.C.F.S. argued the children had been in agency custody long enough, could not be reunified within a reasonable time, parents failed to remedy conditions (substance abuse, mental health, domestic violence), and permanent custody was in the children’s best interest	Court affirmed: clear-and-convincing evidence established R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) and best-interest factors under R.C. 2151.414(D); permanent custody awarded to C.C.D.C.F.S.

In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (recognizing fundamental right to parent and balancing permanency against parental rights)
Troxell v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental rights are a fundamental liberty interest)
In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (1997) (discussing parental rights in juvenile proceedings)
In re Hoffman, 97 Ohio St.3d 92 (2002) (describing permanency orders as extremely consequential)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1958) (defining "clear and convincing" standard)
In re M.S., 34 N.E.3d 420 (8th Dist. 2015) (prior appellate reversal and remand for insufficient best-interest evidence)