In re S.D-M.
2014 Ohio 1501
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Child S.D-M. born Sept. 12, 2011; mother (14 at birth) was in foster care; father (17) lived with his grandmother.
- CSB obtained emergency custody while child still in hospital and later temporary custody; parents had case plans requiring parenting classes, contact, and basic caregiving; mother had additional mental-health requirements.
- Over ~2 years mother lived in multiple placements and had mixed compliance; mother and child lived together intermittently (~5 months total).
- Father completed a parenting course, maintained employment, had largely positive supervised and unsupervised visits, and sought legal custody; he admitted occasional marijuana use but denied use around the child.
- CSB moved for permanent custody after the child had been in agency custody for at least 12 of the prior 22 months; trial court granted permanent custody to CSB, relying in part on father’s alleged failure to complete drug screens and participate in a father-support program.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, concluding the trial court improperly relied on obligations that were never journalized as part of father’s case plan; father and mother’s assignments concerning the best-interest finding were sustained; father’s constitutional challenge to the 12-of-22 statute was moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (CSB) | Parents' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody was in child’s best interest | CSB: evidence (including parents’ alleged noncompliance) showed permanency with CSB was necessary | Parents: evidence did not clearly and convincingly show permanency with CSB; positive evidence favoring placement with father | Reversed — trial court’s best-interest finding not supported by clear and convincing evidence when correct case-plan obligations considered |
| Whether father’s failure to complete drug screens / Fame Fathers could be weighed | CSB: caseworker and GAL treated those as part of father’s plan and relied on noncompliance | Father: drug screens and program were never added to or journalized in his case plan; thus he was not bound | Held for father: those requirements were never part of the formal case plan and should not have been used against him |
| Whether case-plan amendments can be imposed by caseworker orally | CSB: agency treated requests as necessary supervision measures | Parents: statutory procedures (R.C. 2151.412) require court filing/journalization for substantive changes; oral directives insufficient | Held: statutory process controls; substantive changes require filing, notice, and court approval; oral directives lack force |
| Constitutionality of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) (12-of-22 rule) | CSB: provision valid for evaluating permanent custody timing | Father: provision unconstitutional as creating a presumption of parental unfitness | Moot — appellate court did not reach the constitutional claim because reversal on other grounds rendered it unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (Ohio 1996) (permanent custody requires clear-and-convincing proof of statutory prongs)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (Ohio 1985) (definition of clear-and-convincing evidence)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (standard for clear-and-convincing proof)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (standard for reviewing manifest weight and adequacy of proof)
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 2004) (purpose of the 12-of-22 period is to permit parents time to demonstrate fitness)
- In re Burrell, 58 Ohio St.2d 37 (Ohio 1979) (parental conduct is relevant only insofar as it affects the child)
- In re Wise, 96 Ohio App.3d 619 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994) (parents bear no burden to prove rights should not be terminated)