2023 Ohio 144
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- CCDCFS removed infant P.S. from Mother on January 16, 2019 after Mother was hospitalized for thoughts of harming the child; temporary custody to the agency was entered with Mother’s consent and later continued.
- Mother has PTSD and reports hearing voices; her engagement in mental-health care and psychiatric medication compliance was inconsistent (gaps in treatment and missed/discarded medications through the case).
- Mother experienced chronic housing and employment instability (shelter stays, multiple residences, unpaid rent, home with heating/plumbing issues) and provided limited documentation of employment.
- Mother completed multiple parenting and domestic-violence programs but continued problematic parenting (agency observed instances of hitting the child during visits); visits were intermittent and only later progressed to unsupervised.
- P.S. has lived with the same foster family since removal, is bonded to and thriving with them, and the foster family is willing to adopt; CCDCFS moved for permanent custody in June 2020, trial was May 23, 2022, and the juvenile court awarded permanent custody to CCDCFS. Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | CCDCFS Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency/manifest weight of evidence for permanent custody | Trial evidence does not support permanent custody; award is against manifest weight | Clear and convincing evidence supports both statutory prongs and best-interest determination | Affirmed — competent, credible evidence supports the judgment |
| Whether R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) (12+ months in agency custody of a consecutive 22-month period) is met | Mother implied the statutory time/entry requirements were not satisfied | P.S. entered agency custody Jan 16, 2019 and remained in custody through trial in May 2022 | Held satisfied — child was in agency custody for the required period |
| Whether Mother failed to remedy conditions (R.C. 2151.414(E)(1)) | Mother pointed to participation in services and completed programs | Mother’s inconsistent mental-health care/medication noncompliance, unstable housing/employment, and continued inappropriate discipline show repeated failure to substantially remedy conditions | Held: Mother failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions |
| Whether permanent custody is in the child’s best interest and whether R.C. 2151.414(D)(2) mandatory factors apply | Mother argued bonding and parental love favor reunification | P.S. is bonded to and thriving with foster family; child has been in agency custody >2 years; no relative sought legal custody; child cannot meet planned-permanent-living requirements | Held: All R.C. 2151.414(D)(2) elements satisfied → permanent custody in child’s best interest; court was required to grant it |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (recognizing fundamental parental liberty interest)
- In re Hoffman, 97 Ohio St.3d 92 (termination of parental rights described as extreme sanction)
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (parents entitled to full procedural and substantive protections)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (no single best-interest factor carries dispositive weight under R.C. 2151.414(D))
- Johnson v. Abdullah, 166 Ohio St.3d 427 (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)