2016 Ohio 788
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Mother (Kennisha T.) and Father are parents of S.R.T., born September 16, 2014; Father did not appeal. The child required special medical care after a premature birth and was placed in foster care on CSB emergency custody.
- CSB had a history with Mother: her parental rights had previously been involuntarily terminated as to seven other children. CSB obtained a reasonable-efforts bypass under R.C. 2151.419(A)(2).
- Mother’s juvenile case plan required psychological/psychiatric and chemical-dependency evaluations, counseling (including for domestic violence), drug screens, stable housing/income, and parenting classes.
- Mother failed to complete a required psychological evaluation (obtained only a limited mental-health evaluation and did not follow recommendations), did not complete chemical-dependency evaluation, attended only limited counseling and parenting classes, and maintained an ongoing relationship/contacts with a violent former partner.
- The maternal aunt and uncle (West Virginia) were approved and willing to foster/adopt; the guardian ad litem and caseworker recommended permanent custody to CSB. The juvenile court granted CSB permanent custody; Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (CSB) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody was supported by clear and convincing evidence under R.C. 2151.414(B)(2) (child cannot/should not be placed with parent) | Mother argued the court’s permanent-custody finding was against the weight of the evidence and she could now provide a legally secure, adequate placement despite prior terminations | CSB argued Mother failed to remedy conditions (mental health, substance use evaluation, domestic violence, parenting) and prior terminations justified R.C. 2151.414(E)(11) consideration | Affirmed: court’s findings that child could not/should not be placed with Mother were supported; Mother failed to show by clear and convincing evidence she could now provide a legally secure, adequate placement (R.C. 2151.414(E)(11)) |
| Whether permanent custody was in the child’s best interest and whether legal custody to aunt should have been granted instead | Mother argued permanent custody was not in S.R.T.’s best interest and contended legal custody to the maternal aunt (or Mother herself) should have been considered | CSB, guardian ad litem, and caseworker argued best interest favored permanent custody because child needed stability, mother lacked consistent treatment and parenting capacity, and the aunt sought adoption (not legal custody) | Affirmed: best-interest factors favored permanent custody; legal custody to aunt was not an available relief after the aunt elected to pursue adoption |
Key Cases Cited
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (discusses burden and standards for permanent custody)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for manifest-weight review of trial-court factfinding)