In re T.P.
2015 Ohio 3679
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Mother has three children: J.P. (older daughter), Q.H. (older son) and T.P. (infant). J.P. and Q.H. were removed after Q.H. sustained severe injuries in June 2013; mother pleaded guilty to child endangerment related to those events. Father (Kevin Price) was convicted and incarcerated for abusing Q.H.
- T.P. was born in February 2014; father is the same as Q.H.’s abuser. The agency took emergency custody of T.P. at birth and later obtained temporary custody.
- The agency filed for permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) (child cannot or should not be placed with parent), prior to a 12-of-22-months custody period, based on mother’s failure to protect her older children and unresolved issues (mental health, instability, substance history).
- At the January 2015 hearing, testimony from the social worker, GAL, and mother’s counselor described mother’s mood volatility, inconsistent engagement in counseling, denial of responsibility for the siblings’ injuries, and instances of aggressive/abusive behavior during visits.
- Foster placement: T.P. and Q.H. were placed in the same foster home since T.P.’s birth; foster family, GAL, and court found the placement stable and in the child’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Agency’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether granting permanent custody to the agency was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Mother argued the juvenile court erred; she completed case-plan tasks and maintained a bond with T.P., so custody should remain with her or be deferred | The agency argued mother failed to remedy conditions that led to removal, denied responsibility for abuse, remained emotionally unstable, and placed children at risk | Court held: Not against manifest weight — clear and convincing evidence supports permanent custody to agency |
| Whether R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) ground (child cannot/should not be placed with parent) was met | Mother argued reunification was possible because she completed portions of her plan and improved housing/employment | Agency cited multiple statutory factors (E)(1),(5),(6),(12),(15)/(16): failure to remedy conditions, parent/father convictions for abuse, risk of recurrence, and mother’s inability to protect children | Court held: Multiple E-factors found; (B)(1)(a) satisfied by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether filing for permanent custody before 12-of-22 months was improper | Mother suggested agency should have waited for the 12/22 period before moving for permanent custody | Agency relied on (B)(1)(a) as an alternative ground allowing an earlier filing (C.W. precedent) | Court held: Filing before 12 months was permissible since agency proceeded under (B)(1)(a) rather than the 12/22 ground |
| Whether permanent custody was in T.P.’s best interest under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) | Mother argued the sibling bond and positive visitation favored reunification and legal custody or continued reunification efforts | Agency and GAL argued child’s need for secure, permanent placement, mother’s instability, lack of acknowledged responsibility, and absence of suitable relatives favored agency custody | Court held: Best-interest factors weighed for agency; permanent custody awarded to CCDCFS |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (Ohio 1997) (parental right to raise a child is a fundamental civil right)
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 2004) (agency may file for permanent custody before 12/22 period when relying on other statutory grounds)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (Ohio 1985) (clear-and-convincing standard defined as producing a firm belief or conviction)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Dylan C., 121 Ohio App.3d 115 (Ohio App.) (appellate review standard in permanent custody cases)