In re N.B.
2016 Ohio 7372
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Child N.B. born Oct. 21, 2013; mother initially named another man (Paramour) on the birth certificate; later genetic testing identified Kenneth Hill Jr. (Father) as biological father.
- Child removed Sept. 2014 due to parental instability and parental substance abuse; Agency obtained temporary custody and filed a case plan.
- Father had limited early contact, later absconded from criminal proceedings, was arrested and convicted for aggravated possession of methamphetamine and incarcerated until July 2016.
- Agency moved for permanent custody Aug. 21, 2015; hearings occurred Jan–Mar 2016; magistrate granted permanent custody to the Agency April 13, 2016; trial court adopted magistrate’s decision April 29, 2016.
- Father objected arguing the Agency failed to provide reasonable case planning and diligent efforts (particularly because he was not added to the case plan until Jan. 2016 and was incarcerated), and he did not supply a transcript of the hearing for the trial court’s review.
- Court found Father offered no transcript as required by Juv.R. 40, concluded the magistrate’s findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence (Father’s incarceration, drug history, lack of relationship with child, failure to engage in services), and affirmed permanent custody to the Agency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Agency) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Agency provided reasonable case planning and diligent efforts so that the child could not be placed with Father within a reasonable time | Agency: reasonable efforts/case planning were made; continuances and prior findings addressed efforts; child in stable foster placement seeking adoption | Father: Agency failed to provide reasonable case planning and available in‑prison services; he wasn’t added to the plan until Jan. 2016 and couldn’t work plan while incarcerated | Court: Affirmed — father failed to provide required transcript; record supports finding by clear and convincing evidence that reunification was not feasible within a reasonable time; permanent custody granted to Agency |
Key Cases Cited
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (defines clear and convincing evidence standard)
- In re: Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (Ohio 1985) (discusses burden of proof in adoption/permanent custody contexts)
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1990) (appellate review when trier of fact had sufficient evidence)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (permanent custody proceedings not subject to R.C. 2151.419 reasonable-efforts requirement applicable to dispositional hearings)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parental rights are fundamental and require appropriate procedural protections)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (parental rights as a fundamental liberty interest)