2020 Ohio 3499
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- S.H., diagnosed with Type I diabetes, suffered a near-fatal health crisis after parents failed to provide/maintain appropriate medical care; BCCS removed the child and placed her in foster care.
- BCCS filed for permanent custody as the original disposition; parents were criminally charged and later convicted of endangering children related to the medical neglect.
- A case plan existed (and was reinstated); parents completed only a psychological evaluation and did not engage meaningfully with agency services or training for diabetes management.
- Mother's visitation was suspended for violations of visitation rules and a court no-contact order was entered while criminal charges were pending; visits were later "liberalized" by court order but parents did not reestablish contact.
- The foster family provided continuous, professional-level diabetes care and S.H. improved medically and academically (though still behind grade level); foster parents expressed willingness to adopt.
- Magistrate granted permanent custody to BCCS; juvenile court overruled parents' objections and this court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BCCS made reasonable efforts to reunify under R.C. 2151.419 | Mother: agency failed to adopt/obtain court-approved case plan and did not allow reunification opportunities | BCCS: case plan existed, was signed, reinstated, and agency made repeated contact attempts; parents failed to engage | Court: BCCS made reasonable efforts; parents largely did not cooperate |
| Whether statutory factors show child cannot/should not be placed with either parent (R.C. 2151.414(E)) | Parents: evidence insufficient to show inability to place child with them within a reasonable time | BCCS: parents failed to remedy conditions, convicted for endangering, lacked medical competence and commitment | Court: multiple E factors proven (including convictions, failure to remedy, medical danger); child cannot be placed with parents within reasonable time |
| Whether permanent custody is in child's best interest (R.C. 2151.414(D)) | Parents: termination not in child's best interest; limited time out of home and visitation restrictions impeded reunification | BCCS: child bonded to foster family, improved health, long custodial history with agency, no suitable relatives | Court: best-interest factors favor BCCS (bonding, custodial history, need for legally secure placement) |
| Whether denial/limitation of visitation was an abuse of discretion/plain error | Mother: denying/limiting parenting time prevented working toward reunification | BCCS: suspension due to mother's rule violations and court-ordered no-contact; court allowed liberalization if parents demonstrated they could visit safely | Court: not an abuse of discretion or plain error; suspension and limits were justified and later liberalized contingent on parent's conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (clear-and-convincing standard required before terminating parental rights)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (standard for reviewing whether a judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (plain-error standard in civil cases)