2022 Ohio 2784
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Appellant S.N. (mother) had three children removed by Franklin County Children Services (FCCS) in May 2016 after allegations of nonprescribed opiate use and domestic violence; children adjudicated neglected/dependent and placed in FCCS temporary custody.
- Children were first in kinship care (placement disrupted for supervision issues) and later in a foster home where they remain; foster parents are bonded and potentially adoptive.
- FCCS pursued permanent custody after repeated case-plan extensions; trial occurred May 2021 and the juvenile court awarded permanent custody to FCCS on August 6, 2021.
- Caseworker and guardian ad litem testified appellant had inconsistent visitation (multiple 90+‑day gaps; removed from schedule five times), unstable employment and transportation, incomplete substance‑abuse treatment, and a positive drug screen (cocaine, Oct. 2020).
- Record contains allegations of domestic violence and sexualized/inappropriate touching involving G.J. (father of two children) and ongoing contact between appellant and G.J., raising safety concerns for placement with appellant.
- Trial court found the children abandoned by appellant and that permanent custody to FCCS was in the children’s best interests; this court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | FCCS/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FCCS had to prove it made reasonable efforts to reunify before granting permanent custody | FCCS did not make adequate efforts to facilitate reunification (transportation, virtual visits, services) | Agency argued R.C. 2151.419(A)(1) does not apply at a permanent-custody hearing and that appellant effectively abandoned the children, relieving FCCS of the requirement to make reasonable‑efforts findings | Court: No need to decide efforts issue because trial court properly found abandonment under R.C. 2151.011(C); reasonable‑efforts finding therefore not required here (affirmed) |
| Whether granting permanent custody to FCCS was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Appellant claimed bonds with children, maintained housing and sought treatment, and argued evidence did not support termination of parental rights | FCCS, GAL, and caseworker pointed to long custody history, inconsistent visitation, incomplete treatment and positive drug tests, safety concerns from appellant’s relationship with G.J., and children’s preference to remain with foster parents | Court: Weight of competent, credible evidence supports best‑interest finding and permanent custody; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (R.C. 2151.419 does not apply to motions for permanent custody under R.C. 2151.413, though agency must still make reasonable efforts where required)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (termination of parental rights requires heightened procedural protection)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (parental rights are fundamental liberty interests)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (standard for manifest‑weight review)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (Ohio 2006) (best‑interest factors and no single factor controls)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (Ohio 1990) (recognition of parental liberty interest)