2018 Ohio 517
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Twins E.P. and R.P., born prematurely in Jan. 2015 with ongoing medical needs, were removed from parents and placed in foster care the same month; MCCS obtained ex parte temporary custody and foster placement.
- Mother (M.R.) has documented mental-health diagnoses (mood disorder, personality disorder, mild intellectual disability), low IQ, and cognitive/functional limitations; Father has personality/mood disorders and a history of domestic violence and seizures.
- MCCS developed a case plan requiring mental‑health treatment, parenting education, life‑skills/housing, and domestic‑violence services; parents attended some services but did not complete recommended treatments (including Dr. Bromberg’s DBT/medication monitoring/skills recommendations).
- The twins remained continuously in MCCS custody with the same foster-to-adopt family; foster parents were bonded and willing to adopt; children’s medical and developmental needs were being met in foster care.
- MCCS moved for permanent custody in June 2016; a contested hearing was held Sept. 22, 2016 (parents presented no witnesses). The magistrate and then the juvenile court granted MCCS permanent custody; mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (MCCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported award of permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) and best‑interest factors R.C. 2151.414(D) | Mother: factors weigh in favor of reunification; parents love children and made some efforts | MCCS: children have been in agency custody >12 months; parents have chronic, severe mental/physical issues, failed to remedy removal causes, and cannot provide safe, permanent home | Court: Affirmed. Competent, credible evidence supported best‑interest findings and permanent custody. |
| Whether R.C. 2151.414(E) statutory factors (E(1), (2), (4), (14)) were met | Mother: argued the factors did not justify termination; parents were improving and should get a second extension | MCCS: parents failed repeatedly to rectify conditions, have chronic mental/physical disabilities, missed medical appointments, lacked housing/income, and posed safety risks | Court: Found factors applied (failure to remedy, chronic conditions, lack of commitment, inability to provide necessities); no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether MCCS made reasonable efforts to prevent continued removal or to reunify | Mother: MCCS failed to make reasonable efforts re: housing referrals, income verification assistance, and implementing Dr. Bromberg’s recommendations for Father | MCCS: agency provided referrals (subsidized housing lists, treatment providers, parenting programs, oxygen training), assisted scheduling, and repeatedly offered services; parents declined/failed to follow through | Court: MCCS made reasonable, good‑faith efforts; parents’ noncompliance and choices caused delays/failures. |
| Whether a second extension of temporary custody should have been granted | Mother: court should have granted another extension to allow completion of services | MCCS: given long history and lack of progress, further extension would not help and would harm children’s need for permanency | Court: Denied — further extension not in children’s best interests given minimal prospect of parental change. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (2008) (defines "clear and convincing" standard and parental‑rights protections)
- In re D.A., 113 Ohio St.3d 88 (2007) (discusses state authority to protect children and standards for termination)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (abuse‑of‑discretion review of juvenile court findings in custody termination)
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (2004) (permanent custody when child has been in agency custody ≥12 months)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (2006) (best‑interest analysis and that no single factor is dispositive)