2020 Ohio 3032
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background:
- R.G., born prematurely in 2016, had extensive, ongoing medical needs requiring specialized equipment and frequent specialist care; CCDCFS filed for emergency temporary custody on May 18, 2017 and placed him in pre-adjudicatory temporary custody on June 15, 2017.
- Mother admitted dependency allegations; R.G. was adjudicated dependent (September 2017) and committed to CCDCFS temporary custody (November 14, 2017).
- Mother’s case plan required mental-health assessment/follow-up, regular visitation, and medical-care training; reunification was the stated goal.
- CCDCFS moved for permanent custody on April 6, 2018 (less than 12 months after adjudication/commitment); the juvenile court granted permanent custody on April 11, 2019, finding Mother failed to substantially remedy conditions and that reasonable efforts were made.
- The appellate majority reversed and remanded, holding CCDCFS failed to prove the 12-of-22-months statutory predicate and that the record lacked clear-and-convincing evidence CCDCFS made reasonable planning/diligent efforts or that Mother had been given insufficient opportunity for reunification; a single judge dissented.
Issues:
| Issue | Mother's Argument | CCDCFS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) predicate (child in agency custody 12 of 22 months) was met | R.G. had not been in agency temporary custody for 12 of a consecutive 22-month period at the time the motion was filed | The agency relied on the child’s overall custodial history and urged the court to proceed to best-interest analysis | Reversed as to (d): the child was not in temporary custody 12 of 22 months when the motion was filed, so (d) was not satisfied |
| Whether CCDCFS made reasonable case planning and diligent efforts and Mother failed to substantially remedy the conditions causing removal (R.C. 2151.414(E)(1)) | Agency failed to demonstrate reasonable efforts (e.g., placement proximity and access) and Mother showed progress (employment, relevant job experience, some medical training) | Agency provided services (transportation, training opportunities, referrals); Mother did not consistently engage (missed visits, few medical appointments) | Majority: insufficient clear-and-convincing evidence that Mother continuously and repeatedly failed to substantially remedy conditions or that reasonable efforts were proved; remanded. Dissent: agency made reasonable efforts and Mother failed to remedy conditions |
| Whether permanent custody was in the child’s best interest / child could not be placed with Mother within a reasonable time | Mother asked for more time; child improved and Mother was improving, so reunification remained possible | Child’s complex, intensive medical needs required expert, consistent caregiving that Mother had not demonstrated she could provide | Majority reversed the permanent-custody award (did not find statutory grounds satisfied); remanded for further proceedings; dissent would have affirmed permanent custody |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163, 818 N.E.2d 1176 (Ohio 2004) (clarifies the 12-of-22-months rule and timing for measuring the custody period)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361, 481 N.E.2d 613 (Ohio 1985) (defines the clear-and-convincing evidence standard)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (Ohio 1954) (source quoted for the clear-and-convincing evidence definition)
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46, 679 N.E.2d 680 (Ohio 1997) (recognizes parental rights as a fundamental civil right)
- In re Awkal, 95 Ohio App.3d 309, 642 N.E.2d 424 (8th Dist. 1994) (contrast case affirming termination where parent’s circumstances made reunification impossible)
- In re L.D., 86 N.E.3d 1012 (8th Dist. 2017) (permits courts to summarize custodial history even when the 12-of-22 rule is not met)