In re R.A., 2021 Ohio 4126

Background

CCDCFS removed three children (ages 5, 3, and 1 at trial) after an October 2019 police raid of the home where the children were found near drugs and a known sex offender; the home was unsanitary and the children were described as unkempt. Mother admitted an amended complaint and the children were adjudicated abused/neglected and placed in temporary custody.
The agency’s case plan targeted Mother’s substance abuse, mental-health needs, parenting, basic needs, and housing. Mother repeatedly failed to meaningfully engage: she refused early assessments, tested positive for cocaine/marijuana and repeatedly for alcohol, was discharged from outpatient treatment for nonparticipation, and provided no verified sobriety date.
Mother declined mental-health assessment and had documented difficulties during visits; she completed some parenting classes but demonstrated unsafe decisions (e.g., exposing children to a sex offender, failing to follow post-operative dietary instructions for R.A., giving excessive candy after dental work).
R.A. had significant untreated medical/dental issues (tonsil surgery, 12 cavities), developmental delays and sexualized behaviors; both R.A. and K.R. were being evaluated/treated for possible autism and behavioral needs; Mother did not participate adequately in the children’s treatment.
All three children were placed together in a single, stable foster home whose foster mother was willing to consider permanency. The magistrate recommended, and the juvenile court adopted, permanent custody to CCDCFS; Mother did not file objections to the magistrate’s decision and appealed.

Issues

Issue	Mother’s Argument	CCDCFS/Respondent’s Argument	Held
Whether the court erred by not extending temporary custody (seeking longer time to complete a 2‑year plan)	Mother argued the court should have extended temporary custody and given her the full two‑year opportunity to satisfy her case plan.	Agency argued the one‑year statutory term applied (no motion for extension was filed) and there was no evidence an extension would meet the statutory criteria (no significant progress or likelihood of reunification).	Court: No error. Statute prescribes one‑year termination unless an extension motion is filed; record did not support the statutory criteria for an extension.
Whether the evidence supported granting permanent custody as being in the children’s best interest	Mother argued the grant was not supported by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody was in the children’s best interest.	Agency pointed to Mother’s failure to remedy conditions (substance abuse, mental‑health, housing), R.A.’s special needs and medical neglect concerns, and the stable foster placement; GAL recommended permanent custody.	Court: Held for CCDCFS. Clear and convincing evidence supported the R.C. 2151.414(B)/(D) findings and permanent custody was in the children’s best interest.
Whether Mother’s failure to object to the magistrate’s decision affects appellate review	Mother did not file Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b) objections to the magistrate’s decision.	Agency asserted that failure to object limits appellate review to plain error.	Court: Enforced waiver rule; review limited to plain error. No plain error found.

Key Cases Cited

Neguse v. McIntosh, 161 N.E.3d 571 (Ohio 2020) (failure to timely object limits appellate review to plain error)
Eastley v. Volkman, 972 N.E.2d 517 (Ohio 2012) (standard for manifest‑weight and clear‑and‑convincing review)
State v. Thompkins, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (discussion of weight of the evidence concept)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard)
Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (Ohio 1984) (presumption in favor of the trial court as factfinder)
In re Etter, 731 N.E.2d 694 (Ohio App. 1999) (failure to object to a magistrate’s decision waives issues on appeal)
In re Glenn, 742 N.E.2d 1210 (Ohio App. 2000) (one R.C. 2151.414(E) factor suffices to find child cannot/should not be returned)