In re R.H.
2017 Ohio 4012
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- R.H., born 2003, was removed from aunt D.R.’s custody in October 2015 and placed in temporary custody of Clark County Dept. of Job & Family Services (CCDJFS).
- D.H. (father) is a convicted sex offender (multiple convictions 1996–2004; Tier II registrant) and previously failed to complete mandated sex-offender treatment in an earlier CCDJFS case; he had little contact with R.H. from 2008–2016.
- In January 2016 D.H. was added to R.H.’s case plan requiring continued mental-health counseling, a sex-offender evaluation/treatment with a certified provider, stable housing, and income.
- CCDJFS provided a list of potential sex-offender treatment providers (caseworker testimony: list provided April 2016); agency offered transportation and identified a closer provider (Dr. David Roush in Fairborn).
- D.H. delayed engagement: limited therapy attendance, claimed providers were too far or ineligible, saw Roush in July 2016 but did not enroll in documented treatment; agency found no records corroborating D.H.’s claim that he awaited an August group-start letter.
- Trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that CCDJFS made reasonable, diligent efforts, that statutory factors R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) and (4) applied, and awarded permanent custody to CCDJFS; this court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (D.H.) | Defendant's Argument (CCDJFS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CCDJFS made reasonable efforts to reunify | CCDJFS failed to provide timely access to sex-offender treatment providers and blocked his ability to comply | CCDJFS provided lists, offered transportation, identified a closer certified provider, and engaged in monthly contact and team meetings | Court held CCDJFS made reasonable, diligent efforts under the statute |
| Whether D.H. substantially remedied conditions within six months | D.H. attempted outreach and scheduled evaluation; treatment delay was agency’s fault | D.H. failed to follow up or provide medical proof of inability to travel; no documented enrollment in treatment | Court held D.H. failed continuously/repeatedly to remedy conditions for six months (R.C. 2151.414(E)(1)) |
| Whether D.H. showed commitment to child via support/visitation | D.H. claimed intermittent contact and recent outreach in 2016 | CCDJFS showed minimal contact/financial support since 2008; contact in 2016 was via Facebook and sometimes self-interested | Court found lack of commitment (R.C. 2151.414(E)(4)) |
| Whether permanent custody was in child’s best interest | D.H. argued he sought treatment and relationship with child | CCDJFS (and GAL) emphasized child’s long custodial history with aunt, mental-health needs, and need for legally secure placement | Court held award of permanent custody to CCDJFS was in R.H.’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 862 N.E.2d 816 (Ohio 2007) (discusses agency duty to make reasonable efforts)
- In re Estate of Haynes, 25 Ohio St.3d 101, 495 N.E.2d 23 (Ohio 1986) (defines clear-and-convincing standard)
- In re Weaver, 79 Ohio App.3d 59, 606 N.E.2d 1011 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992) (characterizes good-faith reasonable efforts)