2017 Ohio 4474
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Mother V.H. appealed the juvenile court’s grant of permanent custody to Lucas County Children Services (LCCS) for five of her younger children after emergency removal following injuries and failure-to-thrive in infant child 9.
- Child 9 presented with multiple healing fractures and failure to thrive; a medical expert concluded the fractures were nonaccidental and the infant was underfed at home.
- The seven younger children were initially placed with a kin (H.) family; later safety concerns there led to foster placements and separate placements for some children.
- LCCS filed for original permanent custody under R.C. 2151.353(A)(4); the trial court returned three older children (child 2, 3, 4) to parents under protective supervision but awarded permanent custody of the five youngest (including child 5) to LCCS.
- The court relied on findings that parents failed to seek timely medical care for child 9, repeatedly denied or minimized the severity/cause of injuries, and had a long history of prior child-protection referrals; trial court found clear-and-convincing evidence that returning the five youngest to parents would pose a safety threat.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | LCCS/Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether clear-and-convincing evidence showed the five youngest could not be returned within a reasonable time | V.H.: Insufficient evidence; no proof she or A.B. caused injuries; court relied on speculation; services not offered | LCCS: Medical and family-history evidence, failure to seek care, and parental denial justified permanent custody | Affirmed: record supports clear-and-convincing findings under R.C. 2151.414(E) (abuse/neglect, risk of recurrence) |
| 2) Whether LCCS failed to provide reasonable reunification efforts | V.H.: Agency did not provide case-plan services and thus denied reunification efforts | LCCS: Agency proceeded under original permanent-custody statute (R.C. 2151.353(A)(4)); in emergency removal and given safety risks, case plan not required; agency made reasonable efforts for children’s safety and permanency | Affirmed: No case plan was required; agency’s efforts were reasonable given emergency and safety concerns |
| 3) Whether child 5 had standing and whether court erred by awarding custody contrary to his expressed preference | Child 5: Has standing and expressed desire to live with mother; award to LCCS ignores his preference | LCCS: Child’s preference is only one factor; child 5 has special/behavioral needs and needs legally secure placement that mother cannot provide | Affirmed: Child 5 has standing; court properly weighed child’s wishes against best-interest factors and found placement with LCCS appropriate |
| 4) Whether child preferences must control best-interest analysis | V.H./child: Child’s stated preference should carry decisive weight | LCCS: Preferences considered but outweighed by interaction history, special needs, custodial history, and permanency needs | Affirmed: Preference considered under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(b) but did not override other best-interest findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (defines clear-and-convincing standard)
- In re Baby Girl Baxter, 17 Ohio St.3d 229 (agency not required to prepare a reunification plan when seeking original permanent custody under R.C. 2151.353(A)(4))
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (reasonable-efforts principle before terminating parental rights)
- Karches v. Cincinnati, 38 Ohio St.3d 12 (presumption in favor of trial-court factual findings)
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (appellate standard: judgment supported by some competent, credible evidence is not against manifest weight)