2023 Ohio 2916
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background:
- Sylvia (born 2009) came into Clermont County JFS temporary custody after Mother, with a history of substance abuse and prior incarceration, left Sylvia with others and provided little support; father died in 2014.
- Agency filed neglect complaint Dec. 28, 2021; Sylvia adjudicated dependent Jan. 12, 2022; reunification case plan required Mother to complete substance-abuse treatment, obtain stable housing and employment.
- Sylvia experienced multiple placements and was ultimately placed in a group home where she reportedly improved and expressed a desire to be adopted.
- Mother’s participation was sporadic: inconsistent visits, one brief attempt at treatment (left within 24 hours), no stable housing/employment, and no child-support payments ordered May 17, 2022.
- Agency moved for permanent custody Nov. 29, 2022; hearing held Jan. 20, 2023 (Mother absent); magistrate granted permanent custody Jan. 23, 2023; Mother filed non-specific objections and later failed to pursue them.
- Juvenile court overruled objections Apr. 3, 2023, finding (1) Sylvia could not be placed with Mother within a reasonable time and (2) permanent custody to the Agency was in Sylvia’s best interest; this appeal followed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court erred in granting permanent custody to the agency (best-interest and sufficiency of evidence) | Mother: decision unsupported by sufficient evidence; she was trying to rehabilitate, making progress on case plan, and kept contact with Sylvia | Agency: Mother failed to complete treatment or case-plan goals, lacked stable housing/employment, visits were sporadic; Sylvia thrived in placement and wants adoption | Court affirmed: Mother largely waived objections; on merits, clear and convincing evidence supports finding Mother cannot parent within a reasonable time and that permanent custody is in Sylvia’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (due process requires clear and convincing evidence before terminating parental rights)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (no single best-interest factor is dispositive; court must consider all relevant factors)