In re S.A.-C.
2017 Ohio 9297
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Father (Michael C.) is the biological parent of two children at issue (born 2000 and 2006); mother died during the proceedings.
- Children were previously in Father’s custody but were removed after a domestic-violence incident and subsequent concerns about Father’s substance use and household stability (girlfriend’s conduct toward children noted).
- Father initially failed to engage with the case plan, attended visits sporadically, and refused substance-abuse assessment/treatment; mother initially made progress but then died, ending reunification prospects with her.
- CSB moved for permanent custody after children had been in its temporary custody for over 12 of a consecutive 22 months; Father later resumed some visitation and filed for legal custody but had only minimal compliance with case-plan requirements.
- Children adjusted to foster placements; foster parents wished to adopt; children did not want to live with Father’s girlfriend and expressed mixed preferences about living with Father.
- Trial court awarded permanent custody to Summit County Children Services Board (CSB) and terminated Father’s parental rights; Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody to CSB (vs. legal custody to Father) was supported by clear and convincing evidence and was in the children’s best interest | Father: trial court erred; he had become ready to reunify, had housing, and sought legal custody | CSB: children had been in agency custody >12 of 22 months; Father’s visits were sporadic, he had not substantially complied with case plan, and he prioritized his relationship/trips over reunification | Court: Affirmed — first prong met (children in temporary custody >12 of 22 months) and best-interest factors supported awarding permanent custody to CSB rather than legal custody to Father |
Key Cases Cited
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (1996) (permanent custody statutory two‑prong test requires clear and convincing proof of both grounds and best interests)
- Lowry v. Lowry, 48 Ohio App.3d 184 (4th Dist. 1988) (appellant must show prejudice from alleged trial-court error)
- Gries Sports Ents., Inc. v. Cleveland Browns Football Co., Inc., 26 Ohio St.3d 15 (1986) (appellate standard that error requires prejudice to warrant reversal)