In re S.T.
2019 Ohio 4341
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background:
- S.T. born October 18, 2016; Franklin County Children Services (FCCS) took temporary custody days later due to parents' homelessness and inability to care for the newborn.
- Child placed with mother's maternal cousin (kinship placement) after initial foster care; FCCS maintained custody for essentially the child’s entire life up to trial.
- D.M. (appellant) lived with mother in a van at birth, later proved paternity by DNA (99.99%) but would not stipulate to admissibility; he and mother had supervised visitation after case-plan amendments.
- Evidence at trial showed domestic violence between parents, mother’s history of prostitution, parents’ limited parenting skills and borderline-to-low IQ scores; D.M. had some domestic-violence treatment and other partial case-plan compliance.
- Caseworker and guardian ad litem observed a strong bond between S.T. and kinship caregivers and weak bonding with parents; both recommended awarding FCCS permanent custody.
- Juvenile court granted FCCS permanent custody; D.M. appealed, arguing the judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence and challenging paternal designation and FCCS’s reunification efforts.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether granting permanent custody was against the manifest weight of the evidence | FCCS: permanent custody supported by evidence of bonding with kinship placement, custodial history, and parental deficiencies | D.M.: trial court’s decision unsupported by weight of evidence; he substantially complied with case plan and visited frequently | Court: judgment affirmed — competent, credible evidence supported best-interest factors and custody award |
| Whether designation of D.M. as "alleged" father was reversible error | FCCS: treated D.M. as a party and considered evidence of paternity and parenting | D.M.: court later called him alleged father despite prior entry declaring biological father, diminishing his status | Court: no reversible error; designation did not affect best-interest analysis focused on child |
| Whether FCCS made unreasonable reunification efforts (failure to provide parent mentor, no home visits) | D.M.: FCCS failed to follow case-plan recommendations, undermining reunification | FCCS: some plan steps incomplete (parenting classes) so mentor/home visits were not implemented; agency not automatically barred from permanent custody for not completing every plan element | Court: R.C. 2151.414(C) precludes denying custody solely for unimplemented plan components; reunification efforts were not unreasonable here |
| Whether D.M.'s substantial compliance with the case plan required denial of permanent custody | D.M.: numerous visits and some plan compliance should have weighed more heavily against custody termination | FCCS: compliance was partial and did not overcome evidence of inadequate parenting, instability, and child’s strong bond with placement | Court: substantial compliance does not mandate denial; weight of compliance was for trial court to assess and it favored FCCS |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (recognizes parents' constitutionally protected fundamental interest in care and custody of children)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (1990) (Ohio Supreme Court acknowledging essential parental rights)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (1979) (parental rights subject to child’s welfare)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (2006) (no single best-interest factor is conclusive)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (state must make reasonable reunification efforts before terminating parental rights)
- Karches v. Cincinnati, 38 Ohio St.3d 12 (1988) (appellate courts must construable evidence favorably to sustaining trial-court verdict)