In re S.W., 2017 Ohio 807

Child S.W. (b. Apr. 20, 2015) was removed from mother’s care on Dec. 21, 2015; SCJFS obtained emergency temporary custody and the child was adjudicated dependent on Jan. 20, 2016.
SCJFS’s case plan for Mother required a parenting evaluation, mental‑health treatment and medication compliance, parenting classes, stable housing and employment.
Mother completed a parenting evaluation (diagnoses: PTSD, ADHD, features of reactive attachment disorder) but did not complete counseling, medication compliance, parenting classes, obtain stable employment, or maintain stable housing for most of the case; she admitted months of inaction and being focused on relationships rather than the child.
SCJFS moved for permanent custody on Oct. 3, 2016; a permanent‑custody hearing was held Nov. 8, 2016.
The juvenile court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that S.W. could not and should not be placed with Mother within a reasonable time and that permanent custody to SCJFS was in the child’s best interest; Mother appealed.
The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the record contained competent, credible evidence supporting the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2151.414.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (SCJFS)	Defendant's Argument (Mother)	Held
Whether S.W. cannot or should not be placed with Mother within a reasonable time	Mother failed, despite reasonable case planning and services, to substantially remedy conditions (mental health, housing, employment, parenting) that led to removal	Mother argued the trial court’s finding was against the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence	Affirmed: court found competent, credible evidence Mother failed continuously to remedy conditions and placement with Mother was unsafe now and in foreseeable future
Whether awarding permanent custody is in child’s best interest	Permanent custody provides legally secure placement; Mother’s instability and failure to complete plan weighed against reunification	Mother argued permanent custody was not supported by clear and convincing evidence and that best‑interest finding was erroneous	Affirmed: court concluded grant of permanent custody was in S.W.’s best interest based on interaction, custodial history, need for secure placement, and Mother’s conduct

In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (1990) (parental right to raise a child is a fundamental civil right)
Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) (parental rights are fundamental)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (standard for termination requires heightened procedural protections)
In re Estate of Haynes, 25 Ohio St.3d 101 (1986) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (appellate review standard for clear and convincing evidence)
In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (1996) (one E‑factor under R.C. 2151.414(E) can support finding child cannot be placed with parent)
Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71 (1988) (deference to trial court’s credibility determinations)