2023 Ohio 3662
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background:
- T.P., born April 10, 2023, had multiple medical needs; umbilical cord tested positive for THC and cocaine metabolites; mother admitted to recent cocaine use during pregnancy.
- Parents have cognitive/developmental delays, documented mental-health diagnoses, and longstanding substance-abuse issues; father is linked with the Board of Developmental Disabilities.
- Parents previously lost custody or had rights terminated as to older children (one permanent custody to LCCS, another permanent custody in Muskingum County, and legal custody to a relative for a third); prior case-planning services were offered since 2018.
- While T.P. was hospitalized, caseworkers observed parental behaviors (feeding/sleeping/temperature-care concerns) that raised doubts about ability to meet the child’s special medical needs.
- LCCS obtained emergency temporary custody on May 1, 2023, filed for permanent custody, and the juvenile court adjudicated T.P. dependent and neglected and awarded LCCS permanent custody on July 7, 2023.
- Parents appealed, raising two assignments of error: (1) insufficient proof that father neglected T.P.; (2) insufficient proof that T.P. could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time. The Sixth District affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Parents' Argument | LCCS / Trial Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court proved father neglected the child by clear and convincing evidence | Trial court findings mostly concerned mother; no specific instances of neglect by father were shown | Record and court findings attributed developmental, mental-health, and substance-abuse concerns to both parents; parents failed to supply hearing transcript, so appellate court must presume regularity | Affirmed: adjudication of neglect supported; parents’ challenge fails (no transcript) |
| Whether court proved child could not/should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) | Parents disputed that the court proved T.P. could not be placed with father; alleged findings were not specific to father | Court found R.C. 2151.414(E)(2) (severe intellectual/mental/chemical dependency) and (E)(11) (prior involuntary termination as to siblings) applicable to both parents; parents offered no contrary evidence and did not provide transcript | Affirmed: clear-and-convincing evidence supported that T.P. could not/should not be placed with father; permanent custody to LCCS upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361, 481 N.E.2d 613 (Ohio 1985) (defines the clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (Ohio 1954) (articulates the same standard quoted in Holcomb)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 862 N.E.2d 816 (Ohio 2007) (explains statutory findings required for permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414)
- In re A.M., 166 Ohio St.3d 127, 184 N.E.3d 1 (Ohio 2020) (describes the specific findings a juvenile court must make before granting permanent custody)
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95, 661 N.E.2d 738 (Ohio 1996) (one factor under R.C. 2151.414(E) may suffice to support permanent-custody finding)
- Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 400 N.E.2d 384 (Ohio 1980) (when a necessary hearing transcript is omitted on appeal, appellate court will presume regularity of lower-court proceedings)
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17, 520 N.E.2d 564 (Ohio 1988) (duty of appellant to ensure the record necessary for appeal is filed)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (describes the manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard)
- In re Wall, 60 Ohio App.3d 6, 572 N.E.2d 248 (9th Dist. 1989) (places burden on child-services agency to prove neglect)