In re T.K.
2017 Ohio 9135
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mother is biological mother of T.K., D.W., and C.W.; children had lived with their father and stepmother; father was incarcerated in 2015 and later died during proceedings. Mother had not had contact with the children for over three years before CSB removal.
- CSB filed dependency complaints and later sought permanent custody after the children remained in temporary custody; CSB alleged inability to place with either parent and initially alleged abandonment (later withdrawn).
- Mother missed two scheduled permanent-custody hearings, moved for continuance and for legal custody or a six-month extension, and changed residences (Texas, then Alabama) during the case.
- Evidence at hearing: Mother had a longstanding history of mental-health and substance-abuse issues, sporadic engagement in services, unstable housing, and prior loss of custody of another child; she did not complete required assessments or parenting classes and did not follow through with therapeutic visitation.
- Children were residing together in foster care and were bonding with a prospective adoptive foster family that wished to adopt them (and a younger sibling); guardian ad litem and caseworker supported permanent custody to CSB as in the children’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | CSB's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court’s grant of permanent custody was against the manifest weight of the evidence | The award was against the manifest weight; challenges only the court’s abandonment finding | Clear and convincing evidence showed Mother’s long-term lack of commitment, instability, and that permanent custody was in children’s best interest; alternative statutory grounds supported removal | Affirmed. Court found alternative R.C. 2151.414(E)(4) ground (lack of commitment) supported first prong and R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) best-interest factors supported permanent custody |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for reviewing whether a judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence)
- Tewarson v. Simon, 141 Ohio App.3d 103 (9th Dist. 2001) (discussing appellate review of factual determinations)
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (1996) (two‑pronged permanent-custody test under R.C. 2151.414)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (1985) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (clarification of the clear-and-convincing evidence standard)