2019 Ohio 3575
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Feb 2017: Police removed S.H. (then 14) after a physical altercation with a sister; CCDCFS filed abuse/neglect complaint and S.H. was adjudicated abused/neglected on June 1, 2017; temporary custody to agency on June 6, 2017.
- S.H. disclosed that two half-brothers raped her when she was 13; two half-brothers faced delinquency/rape charges and one half-brother remained living in mother’s home at the time of the custody hearing.
- Agency provided a case plan: parenting class (mother completed), individual therapy for S.H. (ongoing), and family counseling (never occurred due to scheduling, transportation, placement changes, therapy conflicts, and hostile mother–child relationship).
- Visits were sporadic and ultimately ceased after a May 2018 verbal altercation; S.H. refused visits and rejected PPLA because she did not want mother involved in decision-making.
- Agency filed for permanent custody twice (Jan 2018 denied; Aug 2018 refiled); Feb 27, 2019 hearing; juvenile court granted permanent custody to CCDCFS; mother (V.H.) appealed arguing the judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Agency) | Defendant's Argument (Mother V.H.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory first-prong grounds for permanent custody exist (12+ months and inability to reunify) | S.H. had been in agency custody >12 months; mother failed to remedy removal conditions despite reasonable case planning and showed lack of commitment and irregular visitation | Mother argued she completed services (parenting class) and the court’s permanent-custody finding was against manifest weight | Court held clear and convincing evidence supported R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) (12+ months) and (a) (cannot/should not be placed with parent); multiple E factors found (E(1), E(3), E(4), E(14)) |
| Whether permanent custody is in the child’s best interest under R.C. 2151.414(D) | Permanent custody best serves S.H.’s interest: severe parent–teen conflict, sibling criminal allegations, S.H.’s stated wish against mother involvement, long agency custody, and need for legally secure placement | Mother contended the evidence did not support that permanent custody was necessary or in S.H.’s best interest | Court held clear and convincing evidence supports best-interest finding (considering interaction, child’s wishes, custodial history, and need for a secure placement); judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (recognizing parental right as essential)
- In re Hoffman, 97 Ohio St.3d 92 (describing termination of parental rights as akin to the death penalty in family law)
- In re Hitchcock, 120 Ohio App.3d 88 (children’s right to adequate parenting noted)
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (clear-and-convincing standard explained)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Glenn, 139 Ohio App.3d 105 (only one E factor needed to find parent cannot/should not be placed with child)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (no single best-interest factor is dispositive)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (parental rights are paramount but not absolute)