In re S.A.
2017 Ohio 8792
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- BCDJFS removed seven children from Mother after Father-2 (Mother’s husband) severely injured C.L.; Mother later convicted of perjury for attempting to recant during grand-jury proceedings and served prison time.
- Mother initially agreed to protective-supervision terms (no contact with Father-2, no case discussions with children) but violated them via jail calls with Father-2 that included vulgar, derogatory remarks about the children.
- Children were adjudicated dependent (and C.L. abused); reunification efforts returned most children briefly to Mother, but BCDJFS later removed six children again after allegations of verbal and physical abuse by Mother and therapists’ recommendations.
- Extensive testimony at permanent-custody hearings: caseworkers, multiple therapists, and foster parents described children’s PTSD, aggression, depression, and that Mother was a trauma trigger; children (except D.L.) expressed they did not want to return to Mother.
- Juvenile court granted permanent custody to BCDJFS, finding (among other things) clear-and-convincing evidence of abuse, children in BCDJFS custody for the statutory period, Mother failed to remedy conditions, and visitation was harmful; Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (BCDJFS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether grant of permanent custody was supported by clear and convincing evidence / not against manifest weight | Mother denied physical abuse, argued evidence insufficient and court improperly relied on hearsay and alleged abandonment finding | BCDJFS relied on caseworker and therapist testimony, recorded jail calls, children’s statements, and custodial history showing persistent trauma and inability to safely reunify | Affirmed — court found clear-and-convincing evidence of abuse, credible testimony supported findings and not against manifest weight |
| Admissibility/use of children’s prior statements (hearsay) to prove abuse | Mother argued shelter-care hearsay and other out-of-court statements were improperly used at permanent-custody stage | BCDJFS pointed to properly-admitted testimony at permanent-custody hearings (caseworkers, therapists) and hearsay exceptions for therapy statements (Evid.R. 803(4)) | Affirmed — court found admission of therapy statements proper under Evid.R. 803(4); other hearsay was cumulative or invited by Mother’s counsel |
| Whether abandonment finding was required/erroneous | Mother contended juvenile court erred in finding abandonment | BCDJFS relied on alternative statutory ground—children in agency custody for 12+ months of a consecutive 22-month period—making abandonment finding unnecessary | Affirmed as to custody result — abandonment issue rendered moot because statutory 12-month custody ground was established |
| Whether permanent custody was in children’s best interest | Mother emphasized bonds and some compliance with case plan; disputed that termination was needed | BCDJFS emphasized children’s psychiatric diagnoses, therapists’ opinions that Mother was a trauma trigger, unstable custodial history, and need for legally secure placement | Affirmed — court held best-interest factors favored permanent custody to BCDJFS |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (recognition of parents’ fundamental interest in raising children)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (state must prove termination standards by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (parental rights not absolute; state may terminate when necessary for child’s welfare)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (state authority to remove children when appropriate)
- State v. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181 (invited-error doctrine bars a party from claiming error it induced)
- State v. Muttart, 116 Ohio St.3d 5 (Evid.R. 803(4) applies to statements made to therapists/psychological caregivers for treatment)