2022 Ohio 1748
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background:
- Two children removed from parents in July 2018 after medical providers and the Agency concluded both were significantly underweight and the daughter exhibited developmental delays and extensive cradle cap; both were hospitalized for malnutrition/failure to thrive.
- Initially placed under protective supervision, the Agency obtained emergency temporary custody upon their discharge from the hospital; children remained in Agency custody from July 2018 onward and were placed with the same foster family in Sept. 2019.
- Parents had chronic housing instability, unsanitary conditions (including bed bugs, cockroaches), documented illicit drug use (Mother: positive cocaine tests; Father: multiple positives for stimulants/cocaine), and limited engagement with case-plan services; visitation was suspended for 14.5 months after parents left bed bugs in the Agency lobby and they failed to timely cure the problem.
- Children received extensive therapies in foster care (speech, OT/PT, behavioral counseling, nutrition, specialist care) and showed marked developmental progress and strong bonding with foster parents; regressions were observed after resumed visits with biological parents.
- Agency moved for permanent custody (Sept. 2019); after an evidentiary hearing, the magistrate recommended, and the juvenile court adopted, awards of permanent custody to the Agency (Oct. 25, 2021). Mother appealed, arguing the court’s R.C. 2151.414 findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues:
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Agency’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court erred in finding clear and convincing evidence under R.C. 2151.414 to award permanent custody | The court misapplied/misstated facts; findings of abandonment and inability to place the children with parents were against the manifest weight of the evidence | At least one statutory ground (R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d)) was satisfied; best-interest factors supported permanent custody; abundant evidence of neglect, drug use, housing problems, and lack of engagement | Affirmed. The court’s findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence; (B)(1)(d) alone satisfied the statutory threshold and best-interest factors favored permanent custody |
| Validity of abandonment finding under R.C. 2151.011(C) | Failure to remedy bed bugs was not an "active choice" amounting to abandonment | Parents had 14.5 consecutive months without visits or contact after suspension for bed bugs despite being told how to remedy; statutory presumption of abandonment applies | Affirmed. 14.5 months of no contact supported abandonment under the statute |
| Whether permanent custody is in children’s best interest under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) | Mother pointed to partial compliance (e.g., parenting classes, some assessments) and employment history | Children needed legally secure placement; children bonded with foster family; parents failed to address special needs, substance abuse, housing, and consistent service engagement | Affirmed. Court properly weighed interactions, custodial history, need for secure placement, and professional recommendations in favor of Agency |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.J., 180 N.E.3d 706 (Ohio 2021) (explaining R.C. 2151.414 permanent custody standards and "legally secure permanent placement" interpretation)
- In re A.M., 184 N.E.3d 1 (Ohio 2020) (clarifying burden and two-prong test for awarding permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414)
- State v. Thompkins, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (describing the manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard)