2016 Ohio 1492
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Mother (Rebecca M.) appealed termination of her parental rights to daughter R.S. (born 2002); Wayne County Children Services Board (CSB) sought and was granted permanent custody.
- CSB's concerns included allegations of sexual abuse by maternal grandfather (Grandfather) and by Jason B.; Mother had a long history of inconsistent relationships with both men and depended on them financially.
- Juvenile court initially placed R.S. under protective supervision in Mother’s home with court-ordered no-contact between R.S. and Grandfather; Mother later permitted Grandfather to live in the home and have unsupervised contact, violating the order.
- Police removed R.S. on August 12, 2014; Mother was criminally charged and jailed for child endangerment; R.S. then spent about one year in foster care with improved mental-health treatment and functioning.
- CSB sought permanent custody after a temporary custody extension was denied; trial court found (1) R.S. could not be placed with Mother within a reasonable time and (2) permanent custody was in R.S.’s best interest, and terminated Mother’s parental rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (CSB) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred as against the manifest weight of the evidence in granting permanent custody instead of a six-month extension | Mother argued the evidence did not support permanent custody and that a six-month extension was appropriate to allow her to remedy conditions | CSB argued Mother failed to substantially remedy the conditions leading to removal, continued risky relationships, and could not provide a safe, stable home in a reasonable time | Court held: No error — weight of evidence supports permanent custody; Mother failed prong one and prong two (best interest) of R.C. 2151.414 |
| Whether Mother substantially remedied the conditions causing removal (R.C. 2151.414(E)(1)) | Mother contended she would protect R.S., recanted prior allegations, and could provide housing with relatives | CSB showed continued reliance on and contact with Grandfather and Jason B., lack of independent income, incomplete mental-health and substance remediation, and credibility concerns | Held: Mother did not substantially remedy conditions; findings supported by psychologist, caseworkers, and conduct (violation of no-contact order) |
| Whether permanent custody was in the child’s best interest (R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)) | Mother emphasized bond with R.S. and R.S.’s stated wish to return if Mother proved stable | CSB, guardian ad litem, and professionals emphasized R.S.’s improved functioning in foster care, need for permanence, lack of safe relative placements, and Mother’s incapacity to parent safely | Held: Permanent custody is in R.S.’s best interest given therapeutic progress in foster care, lack of suitable relatives, and Mother’s inability to provide stable, protective environment |
| Whether a six-month extension could remedy the risks and secure placement | Mother argued extension would allow her to comply with case plan | CSB and caseworker testified Mother could not remedy issues within six months based on longstanding dependency, personality disorder, and continued risky contacts | Held: Trial court properly denied extension; evidence supported conclusion that six months would not be sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (1996) (describes permanent custody statutory framework and standards)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for appellate review of manifest weight of the evidence)