In re T.L.
2021 Ohio 3221
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Mother H.S‑T. has two minor daughters (born 2007 and 2008); both were removed in Aug. 2017 after mother was hospitalized for suicidal ideation, reported homelessness, and admitted recent heroin relapse.
- FCCS obtained emergency custody and the children were adjudicated dependent on Oct. 5, 2017; they remained in agency temporary custody and were placed with foster parents who became prospective adoptive parents.
- Case plans required mother to complete AOD (alcohol and other drug) assessment and treatment, submit to random drug screens, obtain MH assessment, secure income and stable housing, and permit home visits.
- Mother repeatedly failed to complete recommended outpatient AOD treatment, missed the majority of scheduled drug screens (missed screens treated as positive), admitted recent marijuana use, and did not verify stable income or a guaranteed placement if reunified.
- FCCS moved for permanent custody Jan. 4, 2019; after a Sept. 30, 2020 hearing the juvenile court granted permanent custody to FCCS on Nov. 23, 2020. Mother appealed, arguing the decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (FCCS) | Defendant's Argument (H.S‑T.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody was warranted under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) and (D)(2) (12+ months in agency custody and statutory best‑interest findings) | Children had been in temporary custody for well over 12 months; statutory D(2) factors are met (2+ years in custody, no relative custody, not PPLA), and mother failed to remedy substance‑abuse issues | Mother argued the evidence did not support statutory findings and recent progress justified more time | Court: Affirmed. The 12+ month custody period was satisfied and clear, convincing evidence supported D(2) findings that children could not be placed with mother within a reasonable time. |
| Whether permanent custody was against the manifest weight of the evidence under the discretionary best‑interest factors (R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)) | FCCS: Mother failed to complete critical case‑plan components (AOD treatment, drug screens); children need legally secure, permanent placement despite bonds with mother | Mother: Recent improvements and bonds with children warrant extension/time to reunify | Court: Affirmed. Even under D(1) analysis, competent, credible evidence supported that PCC served the children’s best interests given mother’s failure to remedy substance abuse and the children’s needs for permanency. |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (recognizes parents’ fundamental liberty interest in raising children)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (1990) (parental rights are essential but subject to child’s welfare)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (1979) (parental rights are not absolute and may be curtailed for child’s welfare)
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (2004) (agency need not prove alternative B(1) grounds when B(1)(d) applies)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (discusses standards for parental rights and permanent custody procedures)