2021 Ohio 1091
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- In Dec. 2018 the three children (one two-year-old and newborn twins) were removed after twin Sy.B. suffered a broken arm; Mother could not explain the injury and was charged/convicted of child endangerment.
- CCDCFS filed dependency/abuse complaints; the children were adjudicated dependent (and Sy.B. abused) and placed in temporary custody of the Agency.
- Agency moved to modify temporary custody to permanent custody (filed Dec. 2019; amended Feb. 2020); permanent-custody hearing was held Sept. 2020.
- Mother had ongoing substance-abuse and housing instability, was twice discharged from outpatient services, completed only parenting early in the case, and entered inpatient treatment in July 2020; supervised visitation occurred (attended ~70–80%).
- Children had stable, appropriate foster placements and had bonded with foster caregivers; the GAL recommended granting permanent custody.
- Trial court found R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) and (D) satisfied, terminated Mother’s parental rights, and the court of appeals affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) was satisfied (child cannot/should not be placed with parent) | Mother argued she had made progress on her case plan and could reunify | Agency pointed to Mother’s child-endangerment conviction, ongoing substance/housing problems, and statutory E-factors | Court: Finding sustained; Mother conceded conviction under R.C. 2151.414(E)(6) and record contained competent, credible evidence supporting the statute-based finding |
| Whether granting permanent custody was in children’s best interest under R.C. 2151.414(D) | Mother argued her visitation and case-plan progress showed reunification was possible without termination | Agency emphasized children’s bonding with foster parents, long custodial history, Mother’s limited sobriety/housing stability, and GAL recommendation for permanent custody | Court: No abuse of discretion; best-interest factors weighed in favor of permanent custody |
| Whether the permanent-custody decision was against the manifest weight / not supported by clear and convincing evidence | Mother claimed the evidence did not meet the clear-and-convincing or manifest-weight standards | Agency maintained the record contained clear-and-convincing, competent and credible evidence on both statutory prongs | Court: Affirmed — record satisfied the clear-and-convincing standard and the judgment was not against the manifest weight of the evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (recognizing a parent’s fundamental liberty interest and the high standard for terminating parental rights)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (Ohio 1990) (parental custody is a fundamental liberty interest)
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (Ohio 1997) (parental right is an essential civil right)
- In re Hoffman, 97 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2002) (termination of parental rights is a last-resort measure and compared to a death-penalty equivalent)
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1990) (standard for reviewing whether evidence satisfies the clear-and-convincing burden)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (Ohio 2006) (trial court must consider and weigh statutory best-interest factors)