In re T.H.
2014 Ohio 2985
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- July 2010: CCDCFS obtained ex parte emergency custody of T.H. (a young child) after allegations of child endangering involving T.H., his sister L.H., and their guardian; appellant (the mother, a minor at removal) was also removed and initially placed in a different foster home per agency policy.
- T.H. was adjudicated dependent and placed in temporary custody of CCDCFS in January 2011; he remained in the same foster home from July 2010 through the custody proceedings and showed substantial developmental improvement there.
- Appellant later lived in the same foster home with T.H. from Sept. 2011 until she voluntarily left in Jan. 2013; visits occurred but bonding between appellant and T.H. was limited.
- July 2012: CCDCFS filed to modify temporary custody to permanent custody; an evidentiary hearing was held in Aug. 2013.
- Trial court granted permanent custody to CCDCFS (December 2013), terminating appellant’s parental rights; appellant appealed raising three assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) was satisfied (12 months in agency temporary custody) | Appellant: because initial separation was agency policy and later she lived with T.H., the custody period should be characterized as protective supervision, not temporary custody, so the 12‑month rule doesn't apply | CCDCFS: T.H. was in temporary custody beginning 60 days after removal and had been in agency custody for well over 12 months when motion filed; placement history is irrelevant to the statutory 12‑month calculation | Held: R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) satisfied; appellant’s placement arguments do not change the custody calculation; first assignment overruled |
| Whether permanent custody is in the child’s best interest under R.C. 2151.414(D) | Appellant: she has regular visits, has made improvements, and can care for T.H.; severing rights is not in child’s best interest | CCDCFS: foster placement produced marked improvement; child has strong bond with foster family, needs legally secure, permanent placement, and foster parent will adopt | Held: Trial court properly considered D(1)–(5) factors; competent, credible evidence supports best‑interest finding; second assignment overruled |
| Whether CCDCFS failed to exercise reasonable reunification efforts under R.C. 2151.419 | Appellant: agency did not make reasonable efforts to avoid permanent custody | CCDCFS: R.C. 2151.419 does not apply to motions for permanent custody under R.C. 2151.413 | Held: R.C. 2151.419 is inapplicable to R.C. 2151.413 motions; no specific reasonable‑efforts finding required here; third assignment overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard)
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1990) (standard for review when clear and convincing proof required)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (Ohio 2006) (no single best‑interest factor is prioritized)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (R.C. 2151.419 does not apply to R.C. 2151.413 motions)
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 2004) (once 12‑month custody requirement is met, agency need not prove return to parents within reasonable time)