2020 Ohio 3203
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- N.D. born January 29, 2017; tested positive for Suboxone and was diagnosed with neonatal abstinence syndrome; placed in foster care after MCCS obtained interim custody.
- MCCS filed dependency in Feb 2017; child adjudicated dependent March 2017 and remained in the same foster home from release until the custody hearing.
- Father was identified as putative father, delayed establishing paternity (paternity established May 2018), and initially avoided contact; when involved his speech/behavior raised concerns about intoxication/mental stability.
- MCCS developed a case plan requiring mental-health and substance-abuse assessments, random drug screens, releases, home safety corrections, and visitation; Father completed assessments but allegedly was not fully truthful and refused some screening; he visited N.D. only four times.
- Father worked out of state during the week, had a cluttered/unsafe home with a room used for storage, and his wife said she would not care for N.D.; foster family was bonded to N.D. and wished to adopt.
- Juvenile court granted MCCS’s motion for permanent custody (Jan. 10, 2020); Father appealed arguing (1) MCCS failed to make reasonable reunification efforts and (2) permanent custody was not in N.D.’s best interest. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | MCCS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCCS made reasonable efforts to reunify with Father | MCCS did not give Father a reasonable amount of time or adequate opportunity to complete his case plan | MCCS engaged Father early, provided referrals, adjusted scheduling, offered multiple options for visitation and home study; Father delayed participation and limited visits | Court held MCCS made reasonable efforts; Father’s first assignment of error overruled |
| Whether granting permanent custody to MCCS was in child’s best interest | Father asserted he had worked to complete the case plan, could provide stable, loving home and deserved a chance to raise N.D. | MCCS pointed to Father’s minimal visitation, lack of a safe/viable week‑day care plan, uncompleted home preparation, inconsistent substance-use history, and strong foster-family bond | Court held, by clear and convincing evidence, permanent custody to MCCS was in N.D.’s best interest; Father’s second assignment of error overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954) (defines the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard for termination of parental rights)