2019 Ohio 4919
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Twins (T.L. and T.L.) born 9/3/2018; Jefferson County Dept. of Jobs & Family Services (JCDJFS) moved for emergency and then permanent custody 10 days after birth based on mother’s extensive prior history with the agency.
- Mother previously lost custody of seven other children; parental rights involuntarily terminated as to two siblings; mother convicted of felony child endangering (burn/scald of a child) and had children born positive for cocaine; mother was on parole prohibiting contact with minors until Sept. 2019.
- Magistrate found JCDJFS was not required to make reasonable reunification efforts under R.C. 2151.419(A)(2)(e) (because of prior involuntary terminations) and adjudicated the twins dependent; trial court adopted those findings.
- At the permanent-custody hearing, testimony and the GAL report highlighted mother’s criminal history, parole restriction preventing contact for a year, and that the twins were placed in a foster home already caring for siblings and willing to adopt.
- The magistrate and trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, the twins could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time and that permanent custody to JCDJFS was in the twins’ best interest; mother appealed, arguing she was denied an opportunity for reunification and parenting time.
- The appellate court affirmed, ruling that R.C. 2151.419(A)(2)(e) applied, the statutory permanency findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence (including E(6) and E(11) factors), and the best-interest factors favored permanent custody to JCDJFS.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (JCDJFS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of objection to reasonable-efforts finding | Mother did not object to magistrate’s Oct. 16 decisions because she challenges permanent custody — objections not required | JCDJFS: failure to timely object waived issue on appeal except for plain error | Appellate court held issue waived except for plain error but nevertheless reviewed merits given gravity of parental-rights termination and found no error |
| Whether JCDJFS was required to make reasonable reunification efforts under R.C. 2151.419(A)(2)(e) | Mother argued she deserved a reunification plan and time to demonstrate stability and sobriety | JCDJFS: mother had prior involuntary terminations of parental rights to siblings, so statute excused reunification efforts | Court held R.C. 2151.419(A)(2)(e) applied because mother had two prior involuntary terminations (and father had one), so agency was not required to make reasonable efforts |
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported that children cannot/should not be placed with parents (R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)/(E)) | Mother pointed to current sobriety, housing, employment prospects, counseling progress, and healthy drug-free birth of twins | JCDJFS relied on cumulative history: felony child endangering conviction involving a sibling, prior terminations, parole preventing contact for a year, criminal history, and lack of bond with newborns | Court held clear and convincing evidence supported findings under R.C. 2151.414(E) (including E(6) and E(11)) that placement with parents was not possible within a reasonable time |
| Best-interest determination for permanent custody (R.C. 2151.414(D)) | Mother argued twins could bond and be reunified if given time and parenting time | JCDJFS and GAL emphasized twins’ integration with foster family (siblings present), need for legally secure placement, mother’s parole and history, and unwillingness/unsuitability of parents | Court held best-interest factors favored permanent custody to JCDJFS because twins were bonded with foster family, too young to express wishes, needed legally secure placement, and statutory risk factors applied |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (1990) (parental rights are an essential civil right)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) (parental rights protected under Due Process)
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (1997) (termination of parental rights is a grave, last-resort remedy)
- In re Smith, 77 Ohio App.3d 1 (1991) (comparison for characterization of termination consequences)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (1985) (clear-and-convincing evidence standard explained)