2020 Ohio 3513
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background:
- HCJFS became involved after domestic violence between the parents; a civil protection order (CPO) was entered against Father in 2016 and the children were placed with mother under protective supervision, then in foster care at times.
- Father had virtually no contact with the children from 2015 until August 2019; he was convicted of violating the CPO in March 2016.
- Mother voluntarily and permanently surrendered her parental rights and requested HCJFS obtain permanent custody.
- HCJFS sought permanent custody as an original disposition in January 2019 after mother left the children with others; interim custody was granted and a trial on permanent custody occurred in Sept–Oct 2019.
- Evidence at trial showed limited, inconsistent visitation by Father after August 2019, Father’s unemployment and inadequate housing for six children, Father’s minimization of prior domestic violence, and sexualized behavior reported between children while in foster care.
- The magistrate (adopted by the juvenile court) found Father abandoned the children under R.C. 2151.414(E)(10) and that permanent custody to HCJFS was in the children’s best interest.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports finding of abandonment under R.C. 2151.414(E)(10) | Father: He did not intend to abandon; a CPO prevented contact and he lacked clear direction or ability to modify it, so he rebutted the statutory presumption. | HCJFS: Father had no contact for nearly four years, offered no credible efforts to modify the CPO despite mother’s willingness and court guidance; any motion he filed was abandoned by his failure to appear. | Court: Clear-and-convincing evidence supports the abandonment finding; Father failed to rebut the presumption. |
| Whether permanent custody is in the children’s best interest | Father: Granting permanent custody was premature; temporary custody should be extended to permit reunification efforts. | HCJFS: Mother surrendered rights; children need legally secure placement; Father lacks bond, housing, income, consistent visitation, and insight into abuse concerns. | Court: Permanent custody is in the children’s best interest (considering interactions, custodial history, need for legally secure placement, and abandonment factor). |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.K., 95 N.E.3d 394 (Ohio 2018) (emphasizing the need to protect parental rights in termination proceedings)
- In re K.H., 895 N.E.2d 809 (Ohio 2008) (defining the clear-and-convincing evidence standard)
- Cross v. Ledford, 120 N.E.2d 118 (Ohio 1954) (formulation of the clear-and-convincing burden of proof)