In re T.P.
2016 Ohio 72
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Mother (J.P.) has six children; prior agency involvement since 2002 for neglect, substance abuse, mental‑health issues, and domestic violence. Children were removed at various times in 2009 and 2011; legal custody to a nonrelative in 2012.
- In April 2013 a foster caregiver (Angela White) severely beat one child (J.S.), resulting in felony conviction for the caregiver and removal of five children into BCDJFS temporary custody; visitation with Mother was suspended in August 2013 on therapists’ unanimous recommendation.
- Mother gave birth to a sixth child (L.S.) in October 2013; L.S. was removed in February 2014 after parents tested positive on drug screens (Mother: marijuana; father: marijuana and cocaine).
- By March 2014 the children were adjudicated (dependent/abused); BCDJFS moved for permanent custody of all six children in July–October 2014. Permanent custody hearing occurred March 2015; magistrate and juvenile court awarded permanent custody to the agency.
- Mother appealed, arguing insufficient/manifest‑weight error, that agency failed to make reasonable reunification efforts (transportation, services), that L.S. was not abandoned, and that Michigan venue/placement options were ignored.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (BCDJFS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported permanent custody | Mother: Insufficient evidence; judgment against manifest weight | Agency: Children long in custody, parents failed to address substance, housing, parenting; best interest favors permanency | Court: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supports permanent custody |
| Whether statutory two‑part test (R.C. 2151.414) met | Mother: Agency didn’t prove abandonment/12‑of‑22‑month custody or best interest | Agency: Five children in custody >12 months; youngest abandoned under statute; best‑interest factors favor agency | Court: Found prong two met (five by custody period; L.S. by abandonment); prong one (best interest) met |
| Whether BCDJFS made reasonable reunification efforts | Mother: Agency failed to provide adequate transportation and other assistance; she completed services/out‑of‑state move justified | Agency: Provided case plan, referrals, gas cards/bus access, but Mother missed appointments, continued substance use, moved out of state, no stable housing/employment | Court: Agency’s efforts reasonable under statute; Mother failed to make sufficient progress |
| Whether L.S. was abandoned and whether alternative Michigan placement warranted | Mother: Did not abandon L.S.; agency relied on single failed test; cousin in Michigan available for custody; venue transfer/relative placement should be considered | Agency: Parents failed to visit/maintain contact >150 days (statutory abandonment); removal based on both parents’ positive tests; out‑of‑state relative lacked bond and placement would delay permanency | Court: L.S. presumed abandoned (exceeded 90 days); Michigan relative custody inappropriate; court rejected venue/placement arguments |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (due process requires clear and convincing evidence to terminate parental rights)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (standard for manifest‑weight review and deference to factfinder)