In re N.R.S.
2018 Ohio 125
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Crawford County Children Services (CCCS) removed three minor children (N.R.S., J.N.S., K.H.S.) from parental/legal custody after allegations of sexual abuse and dependency; children initially in paternal grandparents’ legal custody.
- Father James Stevey stipulated at adjudication that one child was abused and two were dependent; CCCS was awarded temporary custody and children placed in foster care, then with a paternal aunt under protective supervision.
- CCCS later removed the children from the aunt and filed for permanent custody on March 28, 2017; service on James was completed shortly before the scheduled hearing; James was incarcerated and did not attend the hearing (represented by counsel).
- Case plan required James to complete substance-abuse and mental-health evaluations, parenting classes, family counseling, and negative drug screens; James failed to comply and was convicted for operating a meth lab in West Virginia.
- The juvenile court found under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) that the children could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time and, after weighing the R.C. 2151.414(D) best-interest factors, awarded permanent custody to CCCS.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (James) | Defendant's Argument (CCCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported that permanent custody was in the children’s best interests | James: Trial court lacked clear and convincing evidence to terminate his parental rights and award permanent custody | CCCS: Evidence of father’s noncompliance, ongoing substance issues, incarceration, and custodial history supported best-interest finding | Court: Affirmed — competent, credible evidence satisfied R.C. 2151.414(D) and clear-and-convincing standard |
| Whether CCCS made reasonable efforts to reunify the family | James: CCCS failed to pursue alternatives and did not act in good faith to reunify, hindering reunification | CCCS: Agency provided case planning, extended time for drug screens, scheduled visitation, provided transport, and attempted legal custody with relatives | Court: Affirmed — trial court had previously found reasonable efforts at dispositional stage and record supports reasonable efforts |
Key Cases Cited
- In re B.C., 141 Ohio St.3d 55 (Ohio 2014) (R.C. 2151.414 permanent-custody two-prong framework and parental/child protections)
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 2004) (requirement of finding under R.C. 2151.414 by clear and convincing evidence before terminating parental rights)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (Ohio 2006) (no single best-interest factor is dispositive; totality of circumstances governs)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (statutory timing of reasonable-efforts determinations and when trial court must make them)