2022 Ohio 356
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background:
- FCCS sought permanent custody of three siblings (M.M., S.C., J.C.) after an ongoing child-welfare history beginning in 2013 and a new removal in May 2018; the children remained together in foster care from May 31, 2018 (over 31 months) with the same foster family.
- Case plans required parental completion of alcohol/drug (AOD) assessments/treatment, random drug screens, stable housing, income, and participation in visits; both parents had spotty contact and poor compliance.
- Mother (S.B.) missed most drug screens (over 100 missed; the four tests she provided were positive) and abandoned an inpatient program after two hours; her in-person contact with the children ceased after March 2020 and virtual contact was inconsistent.
- The children are bonded to their foster parents, expressed a desire to remain with and be adopted by them in in-camera interviews, and have special educational/therapeutic needs addressed by the foster family.
- The guardian ad litem recommended granting permanent custody to FCCS; the juvenile court found R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) satisfied and, by clear and convincing evidence, that awarding permanent custody to FCCS was in the children’s best interest; mother appealed arguing due process/manifest-weight error focused on her parental bond.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (S.B.) | Defendant's Argument (FCCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) (12+ months in agency custody) was met | S.B. did not contest this finding | FCCS: uncontested factual showing of continuous custody >12 months | Court: finding was correct and uncontested |
| Whether terminating parental rights and awarding permanent custody was against the manifest weight of the evidence / violated due process (best-interest under R.C. 2151.414) | S.B.: she maintained a bond with the children and had taken steps toward treatment, so termination improperly severs parent–child relationship | FCCS: parents failed to complete case-plan tasks, treatment, and visitation; children bonded to foster family, expressed desire to be adopted; permanency necessary | Court: affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supports best-interest finding under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1); weight of evidence not against the judgment |
| Whether children could be placed with a parent within a reasonable time / parents substantially remedied removal conditions (R.C. 2151.414(D)(2) / (E)(1)) | S.B.: her acknowledgment of need for treatment shows potential for reunification | FCCS: S.B. failed to complete treatment or provide clean screens; no demonstrated stable housing/employment; visitation inconsistent | Court: parents could not place children within a reasonable time; (D)(2) factors proven — alternative statutory basis supporting permanent custody |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Smith, 77 Ohio App.3d 1 (6th Dist. 1991) (parents must be afforded full procedural and substantive protections when the state seeks termination of parental rights)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (defines "clear and convincing evidence" standard as producing a firm belief or conviction in the trier of fact)