2021 Ohio 2080
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- FCCS removed three children (born 2009, 2011, 2013) in Aug. 2017 after allegations including sexual-abuse concerns involving the maternal grandfather (a Tier II sex offender) and alleged abuse/unsafe conditions in the home (severe insect infestation, poor hygiene, clutter). Children were placed in foster care and remained there through the Jan. 2020 trial.
- Court adopted a case plan requiring parents to complete counseling/assessments, parenting coaching, home-base services, sign releases, and protect children from the grandfather; parents completed parts of the plan but repeatedly refused some services and limited access to their homes.
- The children became bonded to their foster families; foster parents are willing to adopt. N.M. (oldest) refused visits and told the judge he wanted to be adopted.
- FCCS moved for permanent custody in Dec. 2018; after a multi-day hearing, the juvenile court granted permanent custody to FCCS and terminated parental rights.
- Parents appealed, arguing (inter alia) the permanent-custody award was against the manifest weight of the evidence and (Father) that FCCS failed to make reasonable reunification efforts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether awarding permanent custody to FCCS was against the manifest weight of the evidence (parents) | Parents: they substantially complied with the case plan, improved housing/cleanliness, began counseling, and thereby can safely parent; termination against manifest weight. | FCCS: children had been in custody >12 of 22 months; parents failed to complete key services, did not demonstrate ability to protect children (esp. from grandfather), and children are bonded to foster families. | Court affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supported the R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) 12/22-month element and that permanent custody was in the children’s best interest. |
| Whether FCCS made reasonable efforts to reunify (Father) | Father: FCCS did not reasonably encourage N.M.’s visits and did little to restore parent–child relationship. | FCCS: caseworker provided services (referrals, material support, transporters, counseling coordination), regularly encouraged visits and did not force a child who refused. | Court held FCCS made reasonable reunification efforts; Father’s challenge overruled. |
| Whether the juvenile court adequately considered best-interest factors (parents) | Parents: the court undervalued their progress on the case plan and improvements; a legally secure placement could be achieved without terminating rights. | FCCS: trial record showed lack of sustained compliance, ongoing safety concerns (grandfather contact), inconsistent visitation, and strong foster bonds. | Court held the trial court considered the statutory factors and that the manifest weight of the evidence supports permanent custody. |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parents have fundamental liberty interest in childrearing)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (1984) (deference to trial-court credibility findings)
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (2008) (framework for R.C. 2151.414 permanent-custody analysis)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (2006) (consideration of visitation consistency and bonding in best-interest analysis)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (no single statutory best-interest factor controls)