In re S.M.
2018 Ohio 4654
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Mother gave birth to S.M. in October 2016; WCCS instituted dependency proceedings four days later and placed S.M. on protective supervision while ordering Mother to follow an existing case plan from a separate dependency case involving another child.
- In November 2016 WCCS obtained emergency temporary custody after observing dangerous/neglectful conduct (e.g., inappropriate feeding, soiled bedding, failure to protect infant); S.M. was placed in the same foster-to-adopt home and remained there.
- Mother’s visitation was reduced at her request and later suspended due to repeated incarceration, poor attendance (attended 5 of 29 scheduled visits), failure to complete case-plan tasks, and missed appointments; last contact with S.M. was January 23, 2017.
- WCCS moved for permanent custody in April 2018, arguing Mother could not be reunified within a reasonable time because of untreated mental-health issues, unstable housing, unemployment, incarceration, and abandonment through lack of contact.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody to WCCS was in S.M.’s best interest and that Mother had abandoned the child; the court emphasized the child’s need for a legally secure, adoptive placement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (WCCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court’s permanent-custody decision was supported by sufficient/credible evidence and not against the manifest weight | Mother: Given more time she could complete case-plan services and be reunified; evidence insufficient | WCCS: Mother's failures (visitation, treatment, housing, arrests) show reunification not reasonably achievable; evidence clear and convincing | Court: Affirmed — record supports permanent custody; decision not against manifest weight |
| Whether Mother abandoned S.M. under R.C. 2151.011(C) (no contact >90 days) | Mother: Any lack of contact was not willful; visitation suspension was not her fault | WCCS: Suspension stemmed from Mother’s choices (incarceration, missed visits/appointments); >90 days no contact establishes statutory abandonment | Court: Affirmed abandonment finding (no contact for 518 days; Mother's conduct caused suspension) |
| Whether permanent custody is in S.M.’s best interest (R.C. 2151.414(D) factors) | Mother: She has a strong bond; had been largely compliant with case plan | WCCS: Child is thriving in foster-to-adopt home; Mother failed to remedy conditions, no stable placement without permanent custody | Court: Affirms — child doing well; adoption offers needed stability; bond and partial compliance insufficient to overcome other factors |
| Whether the juvenile court should have given Mother further time to demonstrate parenting | Mother: Court prematurely granted custody without more opportunity to show capability | WCCS: Mother had an opportunity immediately after birth and months afterwards but failed to remedy removal causes or complete plan | Court: Affirms — Mother had prior opportunity, and continued failures supported permanent custody |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (state must prove termination of parental rights by clear and convincing evidence)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standards for manifest-weight review and deference to factfinder credibility determinations)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (2006) (no single best-interest factor outweighs others in custody decisions)
- In re C.C., 187 Ohio App.3d 365 (2010) (case-plan completion is a means to the goal; primary concern is whether conditions leading to removal were remedied)