2020 Ohio 1456
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background:
- S.M. (Mother) has an extensive history with Stark County JFS and previously lost custody of four children (one by involuntary permanent custody).
- A complaint alleging R.D. (infant) was dependent was filed Aug 2018; R.D. was placed in the Agency’s temporary custody and a case plan required mental‑health counseling, medication compliance, and drug testing.
- Mother repeatedly engaged sporadically with services, failed to complete random drug screens, obtained a medical marijuana card but did not provide proof of legal purchase, and missed multiple counseling appointments.
- Mother made threats against the Agency and the guardian ad litem, prompting a court‑ordered suspension of visitation; Mother delayed and was not fully forthcoming in a risk assessment.
- R.D. has medical needs (sacral dimple/spina bifida, seizure concern, cardiac monitoring) and was placed with a bonded third‑party foster family that wants to adopt.
- On August 28, 2019 the juvenile court granted the Agency’s motion for permanent custody; Mother appealed arguing insufficiency/manifest weight, that suspension of visitation should not be treated as abandonment, and that a six‑month extension should have been granted.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody was supported by sufficient/manifest‑weight evidence | Mother: She made progress on the case plan; court should not terminate rights | Agency: Mother failed to complete plan, has prior involuntary termination, and cannot provide a legally secure placement | Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supports permanent custody; Mother failed burden under R.C. 2151.414(E)(11) |
| Whether suspension of visitation precludes a finding of abandonment | Mother: Visits were prohibited by court/Agency; she could not visit an infant and completed risk assessment | Agency: Mother could have maintained contact by other means and was dilatory/untruthful; threats caused suspension | Affirmed — court properly found abandonment under R.C. 2151.011(C); suspension did not excuse lack of contact |
| Whether the juvenile court abused discretion by denying a 6‑month extension of temporary custody | Mother: Extension needed to finish case plan | Agency: No significant progress; extension not in child’s best interest given bonding with foster family and medical needs | Affirmed — statutory criteria for extension (best interest, significant progress, reasonable cause reunification) were not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (defines clear and convincing evidence standard)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (Ohio 1985) (application of clear‑and‑convincing standard in child custody/adoption contexts)
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1990) (appellate review requires competent, credible evidence supporting trial court)
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (Ohio 1978) (standard that judgment must rest on competent, credible evidence)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (Ohio 1997) (importance of trial‑court observations and credibility in custody matters)