2021 Ohio 2034
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- CCDCFS filed abuse/neglect complaints after a sibling suffered severe scald burns; children were placed in agency custody and the case was refiled multiple times.
- Mother pled guilty to attempted child endangering; children were temporarily returned to Mother but later reremoved after case-plan noncompliance.
- Father was largely absent for much of the case, later surfaced while homeless and with reported substance-abuse issues; the court assigned him a case plan requiring treatment and demonstrated ability to meet the child’s basic needs.
- Father attended some supervised visits but was observed under the influence at times, provided an assessment but no verified treatment completion or stable housing/employment documentation.
- Agency sought permanent custody; the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the child could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time and (2) permanent custody was in the child’s best interest, and it granted permanent custody to CCDCFS.
- Father appealed, arguing (1) the permanent-custody ruling was against the manifest weight of the evidence and (2) the hearing should have been continued due to COVID-19 restrictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Agency) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) was satisfied — child cannot be placed with parent within a reasonable time | Father contends he met case-plan goals (engaged in services, provided assessment) and could care for child | Father remained homeless, had unresolved substance-abuse problems, failed to verify housing/employment, neglected child by inconsistent support/visitation and did not complete treatment | Court affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supported finding child could not be placed with Father within a reasonable time |
| Whether permanent custody was in child’s best interest under R.C. 2151.414(D) | Father argues insufficient evidence that permanent custody was in child’s best interest | Child had PTSD, behavioral problems; needs legally secure placement; parents unable to address needs within reasonable time; D(2) factors applied | Court affirmed: best-interest findings supported by competent, credible evidence; D(2) findings required grant of permanent custody |
| Whether the court erred by not continuing the dispositional hearing due to COVID-19 | Father argues the matter should have been continued because of the pandemic | Father did not request continuance or raise issue below; appellate review precluded absent plain error | Court rejected: issue not preserved and did not constitute manifest injustice; assignment overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (affirming the fundamental parental-rights principle)
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (2008) (discussing parental-rights standards in child-removal context)
- In re Hoffman, 97 Ohio St.3d 92 (2002) (describing parental-rights termination as comparable to a capital sanction)
- Lansdowne v. Beacon Journal Publishing Co., 32 Ohio St.3d 176 (1987) (describing the clear-and-convincing evidence standard)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (2006) (directing courts to consider all R.C. 2151.414(D) factors in best-interest analysis)
- In re Awkal, 95 Ohio App.3d 309 (1994) (discussing clear-and-convincing standard)
- In re Adoption of Ridenour, 61 Ohio St.3d 319 (1991) (noting trial-court duty to consider child’s best interests)
- State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (1981) (standard for reviewing denial of a continuance)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997) (civil plain-error review is narrowly applied)