In re Mn S.(F), 2013 Ohio 3086

This appeal concerns Mn. S.(F), a child who has been in agency custody since 2010, with permanent custody granted to the agency in 2013.
The juvenile court originally placed Mn. with her paternal aunt in 2010, while the mother sought treatment for opiate addiction.
A case plan aiming for reunification was developed in 2011–2012, but the parents failed to meet key requirements (stable housing/employment, treatment, and parenting skills).
In mid-2012, escalating concerns emerged including domestic violence, positive drug tests, and sexual abuse allegations involving Mn. by her father, leading to no visits between Mn. and her parents after July 2012.
In October 2012, the agency filed for permanent custody, and a February 2013 hearing resulted in a grant of permanent custody to the agency.
The mother challenges the decision as against the manifest weight of the evidence, arguing she substantially complied with the case plan and Mn. prefers reunification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether permanent custody to the agency is against the manifest weight of the evidence	Mn. S.(F)’s mother argues substantial compliance with the case plan.	Agency contends facts show persistent failure to rectify risks; continued guardianship is in Mn.'s best interest.	No; the trial court's decision not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (clear and convincing standard applies to permanency decisions)
In re Starkey, 150 Ohio App.3d 612 (2002-Ohio-6892) (review limited to whether credible evidence supports the finding)
In re Rodgers, 138 Ohio App.3d 510 (2000) (reversal requires a clear loss of substantiation of credibility/conflict resolution)
In re E.B., 2010-Ohio-1122 (12th Dist.) (permanent custody factors; 12-month eligibility considerations)
In re J.M., 2012-Ohio-4766 (12th Dist.) (discusses 12 of 22 month custody thresholds in context)