In re T.D.
2016 Ohio 7245
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Montgomery County Children Services (MCCS) filed dependency complaints in Dec. 2012 for Mother (D.D.)'s four children based on homelessness, domestic violence, poor school attendance, and unmet medical/behavioral needs; children were placed in foster care Jan. 2013.
- Children remained in MCCS temporary custody for over 24 months; MCCS sought permanent custody after two extensions of temporary custody; a magistrate awarded permanent custody in July 2015, trial court adopted that decision and entered judgment in May 2016.
- Mother completed many case‑plan tasks: psychological evaluations, parenting classes, domestic violence education, and visitation assessment; she obtained housing (approx. 5 months) and recent employment (approx. 1 month) before the permanent‑custody hearing.
- MCCS and the court were concerned about Mother’s housing and employment instability, inconsistent participation with children’s numerous medical/therapy appointments (many outside the county), and Mother’s admissions that she could not both work and fully attend to the children’s needs.
- Foster families testified to strong attachments and integration of the children into their homes; two girls expressed a desire to return to Mother; the guardian ad litem recommended returning the two girls to Mother under protective supervision but recommended permanent custody to MCCS for the two boys.
- The trial court found (1) the children had been in temporary custody for >12 months of a consecutive 22‑month period and (2) by clear and convincing evidence permanent custody to MCCS was in the children’s best interest; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (MCCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether award of permanent custody to MCCS was supported by clear and convincing evidence that it was in the children’s best interest | Mother argued she completed most case‑plan objectives, obtained housing and income (soon to reach MCCS’s stability thresholds), visited and bonded with children, and two children and the GAL favored return — so permanent custody was not warranted | MCCS argued children needed legally secure, permanent placement after >12 months in care; Mother’s housing and employment lacked sufficient stability and she was inconsistent in attending many required medical/therapeutic appointments | Court held trial court did not abuse its discretion; permanent custody to MCCS was supported by clear and convincing evidence that it was in the children’s best interest |
| Weight of case‑plan compliance in best‑interest analysis | Mother contended substantial compliance should preclude termination | MCCS and court argued compliance is relevant but not dispositive where permanency and child welfare require forward‑looking placement | Court held compliance is not dispositive; trial court may award permanent custody despite substantial case‑plan completion when best interest requires permanence |
| Significance of children’s wishes and GAL recommendation | Mother emphasized two daughters’ and GAL’s preference for return | MCCS argued children were young and other best‑interest factors favored permanency | Court held children’s wishes and GAL recommendations are relevant but not controlling; trial court reasonably declined to follow them given other factors |
| Impact of 12‑in‑22 rule on analysis | Mother contended court still had to find placement with parent not possible within reasonable time | MCCS/court noted once 12‑in‑22 is met, focus is on best interest, not further "reasonable time" inquiry | Court held that because the 12‑in‑22 threshold was satisfied, the analysis properly concentrated on best‑interest factors rather than prospective reasonable‑time placement with Mother |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.C., 2011-Ohio-2066 (Ohio Ct. App.) (standard: permanent‑custody decisions require clear and convincing evidence and are reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- In re S.S., 2011-Ohio-5697 (Ohio Ct. App.) (court will not reverse custody determination merely on difference of opinion)
- In re S.J., 2013-Ohio-2935 (Ohio Ct. App.) (lists R.C. 2151.414(D) best‑interest factors)
- In re M.R., 2011-Ohio-3733 (Ohio Ct. App.) (confirms focus on best interest when 12‑in‑22 is met)
- In re M.B., 2016-Ohio-793 (Ohio Ct. App.) (case‑plan compliance relevant but not dispositive)