In re R.G.S., 2020 Ohio 6696

Background

Children R.G.S. and A.S. were removed by Franklin County Children Services (FCCS) in September 2016 and remained in FCCS temporary custody continuously; foster placement since Nov. 2016.
Parents A.D. (mother) and R.S. (father of R.G.S.) had histories of substance abuse, instability, and significant gaps in visitation (approximately eight months of no contact from Dec. 2017–July 2018), and were placed on court-ordered case plans in Dec. 2016.
Case-plan requirements included drug/alcohol assessment and treatment, random drug screens, parenting classes, domestic-violence assessment, consistent visitation, and stable housing/income; parents completed parenting classes and obtained housing/income only recently.
Parents engaged in treatment late (2019), missed the vast majority of random screens (A.D. missed 188 of 213), and had not completed the domestic-violence assessment; foster parent provided stable, nurturing care and was a potential adoptive resource.
FCCS moved for permanent custody (motions filed 2017 and 2018; hearing commenced Oct. 1, 2019). The juvenile court found FCCS had made reasonable efforts, concluded the children had been in agency custody for the statutory period, found the parents had abandoned the children, and granted permanent custody to FCCS; the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether permanent custody was supported by clear and convincing evidence / not against manifest weight (best-interest determination)	A.D. and R.S.: the evidence did not show termination was in the children’s best interests; parents had recently made progress	FCCS / juvenile court: children had been in care >12 of 22 months, parents failed to complete case plans, foster home provided stability, children needed legally secure placement	Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supported best-interest finding; judgment not against manifest weight
Whether FCCS made reasonable efforts to reunify the family	Parents: FCCS failed to provide expanded visitation and family counseling, so reunification efforts were deficient	FCCS: developed and implemented case plans, provided referrals, transportation, and services; counseling was inappropriate until parents showed sobriety via random screens	Affirmed — court found FCCS made reasonable efforts; abandonment exception also applied so statutory reasonable-effort duty was not required
Whether parents abandoned the children under R.C. 2151.011(C)	Parents: challenge the weight given to abandonment	FCCS: parents had >90 days without contact (approx. eight months), satisfying statutory presumption of abandonment	Affirmed — court properly found abandonment applied
Whether the custodial-history statutory predicate (12 of 22 months) was met	Parents: did not contest this factor on appeal	FCCS: children were in agency custody for the required period	Uncontested / Affirmed — statutory custodial-period element satisfied

Key Cases Cited

In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (Ohio 1990) (parental right is a fundamental liberty interest)
Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (parental rights are essential civil rights)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (due process protections for termination of parental rights)
In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (Ohio 1997) (termination of parental rights likened to death-penalty gravity)
In re Smith, 77 Ohio App.3d 1 (Ohio Ct. App.) (termination requires full procedural and substantive protections)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear-and-convincing evidence)
Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (manifest-weight standard and appellate review guidance)
Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (presumption in favor of trial-court findings)
Karches v. Cincinnati, 38 Ohio St.3d 12 (Ohio 1988) (interpret evidence in manner most favorable to sustaining verdict)
In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (discussion of reasonable-efforts requirements under R.C. 2151.419)