2021 Ohio 372
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Mother has five children (born 2011–2017). HCJFS removed four older children after documented domestic violence in the home and an incident in which one child ingested opioids and required Narcan; the newborn was later removed after HCJFS learned of the birth.
- Case plan required mother to complete domestic-violence and parenting programs, counseling, supervised visits, drug screens, and to obtain stable housing/income; mother completed classes but continued a romantic relationship with D.C. and did not submit to drug screens.
- All three fathers failed to engage in services and were repeatedly incarcerated during the case; two fathers were incarcerated at the permanent-custody hearing.
- Multiple relatives filed custody petitions and the children were placed in various kinship homes; HCJFS later removed them from those placements for safety or suitability concerns; children ultimately placed in foster care and receiving services.
- HCJFS moved to modify temporary custody to permanent custody for all five children; a magistrate granted permanent custody and denied custody petitions; juvenile court adopted the magistrate’s decision. Mother, two fathers, and two would‑be custodians appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellants' Argument | HCJFS/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a statutory ground for permanent custody exists (R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)) | Appellants: statutory grounds not met for youngest; overall insufficient basis for termination | HCJFS: older four children in custody >12 of 22 months; youngest cannot be placed with parents within reasonable time because conditions not remedied | Court: (a) 12-of-22 months condition met for four older children; (b) youngest falls under (B)(1)(a) — parents haven’t remedied removal conditions |
| Whether awarding permanent custody was in the children’s best interest (R.C. 2151.414(D)) | Appellants: permanent custody not in children’s best interest; less drastic kinship placements available | HCJFS: parents lack protective capacity; fathers absent/incarcerated; kinship petitioners unsuitable or lacked protective capacity; children need legally secure placement | Court: Best-interest factors favor permanent custody to HCJFS; parents and petitioners unable to provide legally secure placements |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying kinship custody petitions (legal custody) | Petitioners: trial court abused discretion in denying custody; suitable alternatives existed | HCJFS: petitioners violated agency instructions, failed to provide safe care, or demonstrated poor judgment; legal custody would not secure permanence | Court: Denials supported by competent, credible evidence; no abuse of discretion; not plain error |
| Whether the evidence was sufficient or the judgment against manifest weight | Appellants: evidence insufficient; award against manifest weight and requires new trial | HCJFS: record contains clear and convincing evidence on statutory grounds and best interest; credibility determinations for court | Court: Evidence was clear and convincing; judgment not against manifest weight; no miscarriage of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Williams, 805 N.E.2d 1110 (Ohio 2004) (child may be appointed counsel to express wishes in custody proceedings)
- Eastley v. Volkmann, 972 N.E.2d 517 (Ohio 2012) (standard for reviewing manifest-weight challenges)
- In re C.F., 862 N.E.2d 816 (Ohio 2007) (no single best-interest factor is dispositive)
- In re C.R., 843 N.E.2d 1188 (Ohio 2006) (legal custody does not divest parents of residual parental rights)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 674 N.E.2d 1159 (Ohio 1997) (trial court is best positioned to judge witness credibility)