2020 Ohio 815
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Three children (born 2006, 2007, 2010) were adjudicated dependent and placed in temporary custody of Franklin County Children Services (FCCS) in 2014; they remained in foster care through trial.
- FCCS moved for permanent custody (PCC) in 2016 and amended the motion in 2017; bench trial occurred in 2018 and the trial court granted PCC.
- Mother (T.M.) conceded the statutory 12‑of‑22‑month removal ground (R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d)) but appealed the best‑interest determination as against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Key disputed factual points: (a) the strength of the mother–children bond (mother, GAL, and caseworker testified there was a bond); (b) two lengthy periods of non‑visitation by mother (≈119 and 120 days); (c) mother’s persistent inability to obtain stable, suitable housing over four years despite some limited FCCS assistance; and (d) mother’s partial completion of case‑plan services and contested mental‑health follow‑up.
- The trial court emphasized mother’s housing instability, the abandonment gaps, and her failure to appear on the final day of trial; the appellate court affirmed PCC as supported by clear and convincing evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (FCCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCC award was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Mother: trial court misweighed best‑interest factors; evidence of bond, visits, and case‑plan compliance weigh against PCC | FCCS: statutory 12/22 ground met; mother’s housing instability and abandonment periods show permanency requires PCC | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supports PCC; not against manifest weight |
| Strength of parent–child relationship / visitation (R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a)) | Mother: close bond, appropriate contacts, regular visitation except two periods; foster parents also bonded | FCCS: two prolonged no‑visit periods constitute abandonment and undermine ability to reunify | Court: acknowledged bond but found the long gaps significant; factor favors PCC |
| Child’s expressed wishes (R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(b)) | Mother: children told GAL they want to return to mother | FCCS: placement stability and other considerations weigh for permanency | Court: children expressed desire to be with mother but that alone did not outweigh permanency concerns; minimal weight against PCC |
| Need for legally secure placement and mother’s case‑plan compliance (R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(d)/(e)) | Mother: completed many case‑plan tasks, employed, arranged counseling; FCCS did not sufficiently assist with housing | FCCS: mother could not maintain safe, stable housing for four years; limited housing help provided; missed visits and final trial appearance | Court: mother’s inability to secure stable housing and abandonment history made legally permanent placement necessary; PCC appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 972 N.E.2d 517 (Ohio 2012) (standard for reviewing manifest‑weight claims in civil proceedings)
- State v. Thompkins, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (explanation of "weight of the evidence")
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 376 N.E.2d 578 (Ohio 1978) (appellate review: judgment will not be reversed when supported by some competent, credible evidence)
- Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (Ohio 1984) (deference to trial court on witness credibility)
- State v. DeHass, 227 N.E.2d 212 (Ohio 1967) (credibility and weight are primarily for the trier of fact)