2023 Ohio 118
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- PCJFS filed dependency complaints for S.W. (b. 2020) and Sh.W. (b. 2021) after concerns including parents' concealment of S.W., mother's admitted methamphetamine use while pregnant with Sh.W., and removal of both infants to agency custody.
- Mother and Father previously lost custody of three older children; PCJFS had prior involvement dating back several years.
- Parents admitted dependency and received a case plan requiring housing, employment, mental-health and substance-abuse services, random drug screens, parenting classes, and (for Father) a psychological evaluation; neither parent completed required services or maintained regular in-person visits (last in-person contact Oct. 15, 2021).
- PCJFS moved for permanent custody Jan. 14, 2022; final hearing scheduled for May 3, 2022 — parents failed to appear; court heard testimony from five witnesses and received CASA report recommending against removal from foster homes.
- Juvenile court granted permanent custody to PCJFS under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a), concluding parents repeatedly failed to remedy removal conditions (notably illegal drug use), children were bonded to foster families, and permanency was in the children’s best interest.
- Parents appealed; the Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's permanent custody award.
Issues
| Issue | Parent(s)' Argument | PCJFS / Court's Position | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court failed to make required R.C. 2151.419(B)(1) reasonable-efforts findings | Father: permanent-custody order lacks required written findings describing services and why they failed | Court: that specific description is required only when court makes the R.C. 2151.419(A)(1) determination; here (A)(2)(e) applied because parents had prior involuntary terminations; court nonetheless found PCJFS made diligent efforts | Affirmed — no error; detailed (A)(1) findings not required and record supports diligent efforts |
| Whether permanent custody was supported by clear-and-convincing evidence / best-interest of the children | Father & Mother: evidence insufficient; parents had made some case-plan progress and decision terminates fundamental liberty interests | PCJFS: parents repeatedly failed to substantially remedy conditions (drug use, instability, poor visitation); children bonded to foster homes meeting special needs; permanency required | Affirmed — clear-and-convincing evidence supported R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) and best-interest findings |
| Whether PCJFS failed to make good-faith reunification efforts / investigate living situation | Father: CASA did not adequately investigate; PCJFS was not diligent, partly due to prior involvement and COVID | Court: record shows services and efforts; primary obstacles were parents' noncooperation and failure to engage in services | Affirmed — parents’ inaction, not PCJFS, thwarted reunification |
| Whether denial of counsel’s motion to continue (parents absent) violated due process | Father: denial deprived him of due process and opportunity to be heard | Court: parents had months’ notice; judge reasonably concluded further continuance would not produce appearance and proceedings could continue | Affirmed — no due-process violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (state must prove by clear and convincing evidence before terminating parental rights)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard and framework for manifest-weight review of factual findings)
- In re R.K., 152 Ohio St.3d 316 (2018) (discusses gravity of parental-rights termination and appellate review)
- In re D.A., 113 Ohio St.3d 88 (2007) (principles governing termination of parental rights)
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (1997) (parental-rights termination guidance)