In re T.P.
2018 Ohio 1330
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Mother (Mariah Phillips) had three children: M.S. (2012), T.P. (2013), C.W. (2015). Children were removed in February 2016 after concerns about mother’s heroin use; dependency adjudication followed.
- Mother left residential treatment after 18 days, had sporadic visitation through July 25, 2016, then ceased contact; all three parents were largely absent or incarcerated during proceedings.
- C.W. has significant special needs from premature birth (cerebral palsy, developmental delays, ongoing therapies). The three siblings have been placed together in a licensed foster home since removal; foster parents expressed interest in adoption.
- Paternal aunt (Adrianne Foster, PA) later expressed willingness to adopt/receive C.W. and provided a home study shortly before the permanent-custody hearing; agency had limited time to vet interstate documentation.
- ACCSB moved for permanent custody in January 2017; hearing occurred August 30, 2017; guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody to ACCSB. Trial court granted permanent custody and terminated parental rights on December 8, 2017. Mother appealed, challenging the best-interest finding and the effect of a relative’s custody request.
Issues
| Issue | Phillips’s Argument | ACCSB’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by not treating aunt’s custody request under R.C. 2151.414(D)(2)(d) as precluding permanent custody | Aunt made a sufficient request for custody which should have prevented permanent custody under (D)(2)(d) | Aunt did not comply with the custody process in time; (D)(2) also did not apply because subsection (b) (two-year custody) was unsatisfied | Court: Even if aunt’s request were sufficient, (D)(2) was inapplicable because the children had not been in agency custody two years; court relied on (D)(1) best-interest findings instead; no error |
| Whether the best-interest determination was supported by clear and convincing evidence | Mother argued the evidence did not meet the clear-and-convincing standard; aunt’s late, available placement made permanent custody unnecessary | Agency argued parents abandoned children, siblings bonded in foster home, foster family can provide legally secure placement, and aunt’s efforts were untimely/incomplete | Court: Best-interest findings under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) were supported by clear and convincing evidence; judgment affirmed |
| Whether children were abandoned for purposes of R.C. 2151.414(E)(10) | Mother disputed the abandonment finding | Agency showed parents failed to maintain contact for 90+ days | Court: Parents abandoned children under statutory presumption; supported permanent-custody analysis |
| Whether a legally secure placement could be achieved without granting agency permanent custody | Mother pointed to aunt as potential adoptive placement | Agency and guardian ad litem showed foster family willing to adopt and siblings should remain together; aunt’s paperwork was late and placement unproven | Court: Children need a legally secure placement that required agency permanent custody; foster family appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (Ohio 2008) (defines clear-and-convincing standard in parental-rights context)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (standard for clear and convincing evidence)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (standard for weighing manifest-weight and credibility review)
- In re B.R.C., 2014 Ohio 69 (Ohio App. — discussed (D)(2) as alternative basis and not required when (D)(1) suffices)