2020 Ohio 381
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- R.G., born prematurely in 2016 with complex, ongoing medical needs (chronic lung disease, feeding issues), was placed in therapeutic foster care before hospital discharge; CCDCFS filed for emergency temporary custody and the juvenile court adjudicated R.G. dependent.
- Mother’s reunification case plan required mental-health assessment/follow-up, consistent visits, and medical training to care for R.G.; reunification was the stated goal.
- R.G. remained in CCDCFS temporary custody for over a year; foster parents (Gerwig couple) provided daily, specialized care and attended the majority of medical appointments.
- CCDCFS moved for permanent custody in April 2018; after a hearing in April 2019 the juvenile court granted permanent custody to CCDCFS, finding Mother had failed to remedy conditions and reasonable reunification efforts were made.
- On appeal the majority reversed and remanded, holding the record lacked clear-and-convincing evidence that Mother continuously and repeatedly failed to substantially remedy the conditions causing removal and that the agency’s reasonable-efforts showing was incomplete.
- A separate dissent would have affirmed, emphasizing Mother’s missed visits, limited medical training (especially with the pulmonary vest), and lack of sustained mental-health treatment as supporting permanent custody.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | CCDCFS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was clear-and-convincing evidence that Mother failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions that caused removal (R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) reunification factor). | Insufficient evidence; Mother was making progress (employment as CNA, exposure to feeding/trach equipment) and was not given enough time/opportunity to reunify. | Mother missed many visits and medical appointments, did not complete required mental-health treatment, and lacks training to manage R.G.’s complex care. | Majority: Reversed — record insufficient to support first-prong finding that Mother failed to substantially remedy conditions; remanded. Dissent: Would have affirmed. |
| Whether CCDCFS made reasonable case planning and diligent efforts to assist reunification. | Agency failed to show it sought an appropriate placement nearer Mother or otherwise proved its efforts were reasonable given Ashland placement; transportation and supports were insufficiently documented. | Agency provided services (case plan, transportation to out‑of‑county foster home, medical training opportunities) but Mother did not avail herself of them. | Majority: Agency’s reasonable-efforts showing was incomplete on the record; remand required. Dissent: Evidence shows reasonable efforts were made. |
| Whether permanent custody was in the child’s best interest. | Mother: given progress and the dependency basis tied to medical need rather than parental fault, permanency via termination was premature. | Agency/GAL: Child’s improvement with foster parents and Mother’s lack of sustained engagement support granting permanent custody. | Majority: Did not affirm best‑interest finding because first‑prong failure required reversal; remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46, 679 N.E.2d 680 (Ohio 1997) (parental rights are fundamental; termination is drastic remedy).
- In re Hoffman, 97 Ohio St.3d 92, 776 N.E.2d 485 (Ohio 2002) (termination of parental rights is ‘an alternative of last resort’).
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361, 481 N.E.2d 613 (Ohio 1985) (defines clear-and-convincing evidence standard).
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear-and-convincing evidence).