In re M.W.
101 N.E.3d 95
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- CCDCFS removed two children (M.W. and D.D.) in March 2015 and filed for temporary custody; children adjudicated dependent in June 2015.
- Mother completed parenting, domestic-violence, and mental-health services but showed inconsistent engagement (missed counseling, noncompliance with medication).
- Children have developmental delays and multiple therapies; foster mother ensured appointments and bonded with the children; Mother attended only one appointment in two years.
- Father was largely absent, incarcerated, and did not engage in services or visits.
- CCDCFS sought permanent custody after children were in agency custody for 12+ of 22 months; trial court awarded permanent custody in February 2017.
- Guardian ad litem orally recommended a second extension though his written report had favored permanent custody; he and agency workers expressed concern Mother was not ready to reunify.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | CCDCFS/State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether terminating parental rights and awarding permanent custody is in the children’s best interest under R.C. 2151.414(D) | Mother argued the decision was contrary to the evidence: she engaged in services, has stable housing, is bonded with the children, and the foster parent will not adopt so terminating rights won’t change the children’s care — an extension would allow more time to demonstrate improvement | Agency argued (and trial court found) Mother failed to benefit from services, was inconsistent with mental health and medication, maintained a relationship with an abusive alleged father, and failed to participate in children’s therapies — the children need legally secure, permanent placement | Court held, by clear and convincing evidence, permanent custody to CCDCFS was in the children’s best interest and affirmed termination of Mother’s parental rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (defines clear-and-convincing evidence standard)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (2006) (no single best-interest factor controls; court must consider all R.C. 2151.414(D) elements)
- In re T.R., 120 Ohio St.3d 136 (2008) (statute does not require agency to update case plan with adoption plans before court rules on permanent custody)