2020 Ohio 2972
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Child removed at birth (Oct. 2017) after mother and newborn tested positive for cocaine/THC; LCCS obtained emergency custody and filed abuse/neglect/dependency complaint.
- Father had long-term substance-use and mental-health history, prior indicated sexual-abuse finding, domestic-violence allegations, and intermittent incarceration; case plan required substance/mental-health treatment, random drug screens, DV batterers’ class, SOT assessment, and an agency-approved interactive parenting class.
- Father initially engaged with services but relapsed in mid-2018, cycled through providers and housing programs, later achieved ~11 months sobriety, completed many services (including DV class and outpatient treatment) but did not complete interactive parenting or anger-management and lacked stable housing.
- Visits were supervised and generally appropriate, but staff documented multiple occasions when father fell asleep during visits (safety concern for an active toddler).
- Trial court found R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) and (E)(2) factors met (failure to substantially remedy conditions; severe chronic mental illness/chemical dependency), held permanent custody to LCCS was in the child’s best interest, and terminated father’s parental rights (Oct. 15, 2019).
- Father appealed two points: (1) verdict against the manifest weight because he substantially complied with his case plan; and (2) LCCS failed to make reasonable reunification efforts (allegedly did not suggest a family shelter). Court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the permanent-custody decision was against the manifest weight because father substantially complied with his case plan | Father: completed most case-plan services, is sober, engaged in mental-health care, finished DV and parenting programs, and had clean drug screens | LCCS: father remained unstable over two years, never completed interactive parenting or recommended anger management, lacked permanent housing, had only a short sobriety period against a long abuse history, and fell asleep during visits | Court affirmed: evidence (including E(2) finding of severe mental illness/chemical dependency) supported permanent custody; not against manifest weight |
| Whether LCCS failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify by not recommending a family shelter | Father: agency should have suggested a family homeless shelter as housing option | LCCS: made multiple, documented housing efforts (family-unification program screening, referrals to public housing and Madonna Homes, community advocate and NPI application, suggested unsubsidized rental) | Court affirmed: LCCS made reasonable, good-faith efforts under the statute; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (Ohio 1954) (definition of "clear and convincing" standard)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (standard for manifest-weight review)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 862 N.E.2d 816 (Ohio 2007) (reasonable-efforts and permanency-hearing framework)
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95, 661 N.E.2d 738 (Ohio 1996) (R.C. 2151.414(E) factors and permanency analysis)
- In re Weaver, 79 Ohio App.3d 59, 606 N.E.2d 1011 (12th Dist. 1992) (definition of "reasonable efforts")