In re S.D.
2020 Ohio 3379
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- In Sept. 2016 S.D. (9) and R.D. (2) were found home alone; HCJFS removed them for concerns including medical and educational neglect and alleged domestic violence. Interim custody followed; J.D. (born Jan. 2017) and M.D. (born Nov. 2017) were later placed with HCJFS.
- HCJFS moved for permanent custody on June 14, 2018. The magistrate denied that motion (Apr. 12, 2019), awarding legal custody to the parents with protective supervision of M.D.; HCJFS/GAL objected and sought to present new evidence.
- The juvenile court accepted limited newly discovered evidence, set aside the magistrate’s decision, and granted HCJFS permanent custody (Jan. 28, 2020). The parents appealed.
- The appellate court found the 12-in-22 statutory clock satisfied for S.D., R.D., and J.D. but not for M.D., and reviewed whether HCJFS proved the statutory first-prong (R.C. 2151.414(B)/(E)) and the best-interest second-prong (R.C. 2151.414(D)) by clear and convincing evidence.
- The appellate court concluded HCJFS did not present clear-and-convincing evidence on the R.C. 2151.414(E) factors (domestic violence, supervision, mental health/intellectual capacity, withholding medical care, visitation/commitment, housing/income), and that the juvenile court erred in overruling magistrate credibility findings without new testimony. It reversed and remanded to adopt the magistrate’s order returning custody to the parents (with protective supervision of M.D.).
Issues
| Issue | HCJFS's Argument | Parents' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory first-prong satisfied (R.C. 2151.414(B)/(E)): children cannot/should not be placed with parents within a reasonable time | Parents had ongoing/domestic-violence history, poor supervision, mental-health/intellectual deficits, withheld medical care for S.D., inconsistent visitation/commitment, unstable housing/income | Parents completed case-plan services, improved parenting and visitation skills, sought medical care, have stable housing and income; missed visits for legitimate reasons | Reversed: appellate court held HCJFS failed to prove the (E) factors by clear-and-convincing evidence for S.D., R.D., J.D.; 12-in-22 only met for three older children but (E) factors not established. |
| Whether juvenile court properly overruled magistrate credibility findings without new evidence | Court may conduct de novo review of objections and weigh credibility differently | Magistrate, as factfinder, was best positioned to evaluate witness credibility; juvenile court should not overturn those findings absent new evidence | Held for parents: juvenile court improperly set aside magistrate credibility determinations without new testimonial evidence. |
| Whether best-interest prong (R.C. 2151.414(D)) supported permanent custody | Bonding to foster family, children’s improved functioning, and custodial history (12-in-22) support permanence via HCJFS | Children bonded to parents; parents can provide legally secure placement; keeping family together is feasible | Reversed: appellate court found best-interest findings (legally secure placement and other (D) factors) not supported by clear-and-convincing evidence. |
| Whether permanent custody as to M.D. was proper given time-in-custody (12-in-22) | HCJFS sought permanent custody for all children | Parents argued M.D. had not been in custody long enough and (E) factors/best-interest not met | Held: 12-in-22 not satisfied for M.D.; appellate court did not reach full best-interest analysis for M.D. and remanded to adopt magistrate’s custody award with protective supervision for M.D. |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental interest in custody is a fundamental liberty interest)
- In re D.A., 113 Ohio St.3d 88 (Ohio 2007) (termination of parental rights is drastic and a last resort)
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (Ohio 2008) (definition and standard for clear-and-convincing evidence)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (formulation of the clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard)
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 2004) (calculation of the 12 months-in-22 months custody period)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (Ohio 1979) (parental-rights termination justified only when necessary for child’s welfare)