2018 Ohio 900
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Mother Dustany Foreman is appellant; three children (born 2005, 2007, 2011) were the subjects of Shelby County Juvenile proceedings after earlier removals and involvement beginning in 2012.
- In August 2016 Agency received neglect report regarding children living with maternal grandmother (Karean); children were placed in temporary custody of the Agency in November 2016 after grandmother refused to cooperate and later tested positive for multiple drugs.
- Foreman initially did not participate in the case; she stipulated to neglect/dependency at the December 2016 adjudication but did not engage meaningfully with the case plan until after the Agency moved for permanent custody in February 2017.
- Case plan required substance‑abuse and mental‑health assessments, NA attendance, random drug screens, employment, housing, releases and participation in team meetings; Foreman missed meetings, failed to complete assessments, had a positive drug test for cocaine in May 2017, and refused a random screen in August 2017.
- Children’s behavior, school performance, hygiene, and emotional stability improved markedly in Agency placements; guardian ad litem and service providers recommended permanent custody to the Agency.
- Trial court granted Agency’s motion for permanent custody and terminated parental rights; Foreman appealed solely arguing Agency failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that children could not be placed with her within a reasonable time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Agency proved children could not be placed with Foreman within a reasonable time under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) | Agency: Foreman failed continuously and repeatedly to remedy conditions that led to removal despite reasonable case planning and diligent efforts; thus children cannot be placed with her within a reasonable time | Foreman: Argued lack of resources, medical issues, job‑search efforts, and asserted willingness to comply; contested that Agency met clear and convincing standard | Court held for Agency: clear and convincing evidence showed Foreman made no substantial remedy of conditions (failed case‑plan compliance, positive drug test, missed screens and meetings) so children could not be placed with her within a reasonable time |
| Whether granting permanent custody was in children’s best interests under R.C. 2151.414(D) | Agency: Best interest favors permanency with Agency because children improved in placements and expressed wishes; GAL recommended permanent custody | Foreman: Sought more time, cited health and employment attempts; argued reunification possible | Court held for Agency: evidence and children’s in‑camera wishes supported that permanent custody was in their best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 556 N.E.2d 1169 (Ohio 1990) (parents have a fundamental liberty interest in custody of children, but rights may be terminated under statutory safeguards)
- In re Forrest S., 102 Ohio App.3d 338, 657 N.E.2d 307 (6th Dist. 1995) (standard for reviewing termination of parental rights — court will not reverse if competent, credible evidence supports clear and convincing finding)