In re R.M.
2019 Ohio 5251
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- R.M. (born May 18, 2016) was removed from Mother's home on May 10, 2017 after reports of Mother's drug use and allegations she abused the maternal grandmother; the child entered Agency temporary custody and was adjudicated neglected/dependent.
- Multiple case plans (2017–2019) required Mother to obtain drug/alcohol counseling, mental‑health treatment, parenting classes, GED, stable housing, and regular visitation; Father was later removed from the plan for non‑participation.
- Mother had repeated positive drug tests (methamphetamine/amphetamine/THC) during the case, intermittent engagement in services, limited completion of counseling, unstable housing, and loss of employment/driver’s license; visitation was the only consistent plan compliance.
- The Agency sought permanent custody in April 2019 after R.M. had been in Agency custody for over 12 of the prior 22 months; the GAL recommended permanent custody and reported the child was bonded with foster parents who wished to adopt.
- The juvenile court found the Agency made reasonable reunification efforts, that the 12‑of‑22 months statutory threshold was met, and that granting permanent custody to the Agency was in R.M.’s best interest; Mother appealed raising four assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Agency/State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody order was against the manifest weight / best‑interest finding | Mother: court lacked clear & convincing evidence that permanent custody was in R.M.’s best interest | Agency: Mother’s ongoing substance abuse, failure to complete case plan, unstable housing, and time in custody support permanent custody | Held: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supports best‑interest finding and 12‑of‑22 status |
| Whether Agency failed to make reasonable reunification efforts | Mother: Agency did not show it provided mental‑health/drug services required by the plan | Agency: Case plans, progress reports, referrals, and repeated contacts show reasonable efforts; Mother failed to engage | Held: Affirmed — competent, credible evidence Agency made reasonable efforts; failure was Mother’s noncompliance |
| Whether Mother received ineffective assistance of counsel | Mother: counsel erred by not moving to dismiss after Agency’s case, by not presenting evidence / allowing Mother to testify, and by conceding 12‑of‑22 | Agency: counsel’s choices were trial strategy and reasonable given the record; no prejudice shown | Held: Affirmed — counsel’s decisions were legitimate trial strategy; no deficient performance or prejudice |
| Whether trial court failed to remain neutral (asked questions of witness) | Mother: court’s questioning showed it prosecuted for the State and lost neutrality | Agency: court questions were limited, clarifying, and repeated known testimony | Held: Affirmed — no plain error or abuse of discretion; questions were impartial and appropriate for a bench trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1958) (defines "clear and convincing" standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (Ohio 2008) (permanent custody standard and clear‑and‑convincing requirement)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (Ohio 2006) (no single best‑interest factor controls)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (reasonable‑efforts requirement before terminating parental rights)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (standard for prejudice in ineffective assistance analysis)