2013 Ohio 5870
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- HCJFS obtained temporary custody of siblings S.B. (b. 2003) and K.B. (b. 2001) after the mother, Rebecca, left the children unattended while using cocaine and home conditions presented safety concerns; father Steven Buckey was incarcerated throughout the proceedings.
- Rebecca stipulated to neglect/dependency; HCJFS continued temporary custody and later filed for permanent custody on November 15, 2012.
- Steven remained incarcerated (convicted of aggravated robbery/burglary) and filed a declaration assigning temporary care to relatives/ex-wife; he was not provided a case plan nor contacted by HCJFS about services while imprisoned.
- At the February 13, 2013 permanent-custody hearing, testimony and documentary evidence focused largely on the mother; the agency presented little to no evidence about Steven’s circumstances, incarceration details, or application of R.C. 2151.414(E) factors to him.
- The juvenile court granted HCJFS permanent custody and terminated both parents’ rights; Steven appealed, arguing failure of reasonable efforts and that the termination was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- The Seventh District reversed and remanded, holding the permanent-custody decision was against the manifest weight because HCJFS failed to present evidence showing the children should not be placed with Steven under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)/(E).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Buckey) | Defendant's Argument (HCJFS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HCJFS used reasonable/good-faith efforts to reunify father and children | HCJFS failed to include or provide services to Steven (incarcerated), so no reasonable efforts | The adjudication/disposition entries previously found reasonable efforts; Steven waived the argument by not raising it earlier | Waived on appeal (court found the claim meritless) |
| Whether the permanent-custody grant was against the manifest weight of the evidence | HCJFS presented insufficient evidence about Steven; could not show child should not be placed with him under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) | HCJFS argued reasonable efforts were made and termination served children’s best interests | Reversed and remanded — permanent custody termination as to Steven was against the manifest weight because agency failed to prove statutory factors for denying placement with him |
| Whether R.C. 2151.414’s 12-of-22-months ground applied | (Buckey) N/A — primary focus was lack of evidence re: father | HCJFS relied on other statutory grounds; 12-of-22 not applicable because motion filed before 12 months elapsed | 12-of-22 inapplicable; HCJFS relied on R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) |
| Burden/standard for permanent custody | N/A — argued HCJFS failed to meet clear-and-convincing burden as to father | HCJFS maintained its proofs supported permanency | Court emphasized clear-and-convincing standard and found HCJFS failed to meet it for Steven |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (recognizing parental rights as fundamental)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of clear-and-convincing standard in civil cases)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (standard for manifest-weight review in civil cases)
- Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (discussion of weight vs. sufficiency of the evidence)
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (12-of-22-months rule—relevant date is motion filing)
- In re Hoffman, 97 Ohio St.3d 92 (termination of parental rights characterized as equivalent of death penalty in family law)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (parental right to raise children is an essential civil right)