2020 Ohio 4802
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- T.G., born at 28 weeks (10/7/2017) with intensive medical needs; suspected and later confirmed to have a rare subcategory of Lowe’s Syndrome. Mother has limited cognitive functioning and previously had parental rights involuntarily terminated as to an older child with the same condition.
- CSB obtained emergency temporary custody at hospital discharge and Mother stipulated that T.G. was a dependent child. The juvenile court and magistrate adopted a case plan requiring stable housing/income, a mental-health/cognitive assessment, genetic testing/counseling, attendance at medical appointments, and services to assist caregiving.
- CSB provided services: referrals and payment for a parenting/cognitive evaluation, Fast Track one-on-one parenting instruction (several months), therapy via Ohio Guidestone, bus passes, coordination of medical visits, and increased/then supervised visitation when assessors concluded the child should not be left alone with Mother.
- After ~11 months Mother moved for custody/extension; CSB moved for permanent custody alleging R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), (E)(11), and (E)(14) grounds.
- The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that the child could not/should not be placed with either parent, relying on (E)(1) and (E)(11), and that permanent custody to CSB was in the child’s best interest. Mother appealed, arguing CSB failed to make reasonable reunification efforts.
- The Ninth District affirmed: Mother did not challenge the trial court’s (E)(11) finding, failed to object below to repeated magistrate findings that CSB used reasonable efforts (forfeiting appellate review except for plain error), and the record shows CSB provided individualized services to address Mother’s limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | CSB’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CSB failed to make reasonable reunification efforts | CSB did not provide adequate, needs-specific services to enable reunification | CSB provided multiple individualized services (cognitive/parenting evaluation, Fast Track, therapy, transport, coordination of medical care) | Court held CSB used reasonable efforts; Mother forfeited appellate challenge by not objecting below and could not show plain error |
| Whether alternative statutory ground (E)(11) supports permanent custody | Argued overall error even if (E)(1) implicated reasonable efforts | CSB relied on prior involuntary termination of Mother’s rights to sibling to shift burden to Mother to prove she can provide secure placement | Court upheld (E)(11); Mother did not contest that finding, so (E)(11) alone supported first-prong requirement |
| Whether the juvenile court erred by relying on magistrate reasonable-efforts findings without transcript | Mother contends findings were improper | CSB notes magistrate repeatedly found reasonable efforts and no objections were made | Court presumes correctness of magistrate findings absent transcript and appellant objections; no plain error shown |
| Whether In re H.S. compels reversal | Mother analogized to H.S. where agency failed to secure services | CSB distinguished H.S., showing here it provided and coordinated individualized services, unlike H.S. | Court found H.S. distinguishable and affirmed permanent custody |
Key Cases Cited
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (establishes the two-prong permanent-custody test requiring clear and convincing proof)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (discusses reasonable-efforts requirements and stages at which agency must prove efforts)