2020 Ohio 2950
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- FCCS removed four children (M.T., 15; C.T., 11; A.T., 10; L.T.J., 6) from parents' custody in November 2016; FCCS filed for permanent custody (motion in June 2018; trial April 2019).
- Children diagnosed with PTSD from domestic violence and parental alcohol use; they experienced multiple foster placements and were recently placed together in a stable foster home where they are bonded to the foster mother.
- In in‑camera interviews, older children (especially M.T. and C.T.) expressed a desire to remain with the foster mother and stay together as siblings; younger children were more equivocal.
- Case plan required parents to complete AOD (alcohol/drug) and domestic violence assessments/treatment and random drug screens; both parents completed few screens (most positive for alcohol) and did not complete recommended treatment; father had convictions for domestic violence and OVI and a stay‑away order was violated.
- Trial court found the statutory custody predicate satisfied (12+ months in temporary custody) and concluded by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody to FCCS was in the children’s best interests; mother appealed arguing the decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory predicate under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d): 12+ months in agency custody | Mother did not dispute duration but implied statutory showing alone insufficient for permanent custody | FCCS: children were in agency custody continuously for the required period | Court: Predicate established; children in FCCS custody for 12+ of 22 months; allowed proceeding to best‑interest analysis |
| Best‑interest under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) | Mother: award not in children’s best interest; parents bonded and could parent | FCCS: unresolved alcohol/domestic violence, instability of placements, children’s wishes and need for legally secure placement favor permanent custody | Court: Clear and convincing evidence supported best‑interest findings (children’s wishes, custodial history, need for secure placement, GAL recommended custody) |
| Parents’ compliance with case plan and risk to children | Mother: claimed efforts and disputed alcohol problem | FCCS: parents failed to complete assessments/treatment, missed most drug screens, most screens positive, father convicted of domestic violence/OVI and continued cohabitation | Court: Found parents failed to remedy alcohol/domestic violence issues; noncompliance and ongoing risk supported permanent custody |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parents have a constitutionally protected fundamental interest in childrearing)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (1990) (recognition of parental rights subject to child welfare)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (1979) (parental rights subordinate to child’s ultimate welfare)
- In re Wise, 96 Ohio App.3d 619 (9th Dist. 1994) (permanent custody may be appropriate when parent fails to remedy conditions)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (2006) (no single best‑interest factor predominates in permanent custody analysis)
- Karches v. Cincinnati, 38 Ohio St.3d 12 (1988) (appellate review gives deference to trial court factual findings)