In re T.S.
2021 Ohio 2171
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Adams County Children’s Services (ACCS) obtained temporary custody of three brothers (ages ~9–12) in Jan. 2019 after homelessness, school truancy, and Mother’s arrest; case plan goal was reunification.
- Mother (M.H.) initially made little progress (multiple positive drug tests, unstable housing, spotty visitation), then improved somewhat before the final hearing (parenting classes completed, negative drug tests, verified recent employment, ongoing treatment but not completed, housing not fully secured).
- Father of T.S., Jr. (T.S., Sr.) had intermittent contact through 2019, completed some programming while confined at STAR, but was later incarcerated (release earliest May 2021); he had a prior involuntary termination to another child.
- Each child was placed in foster homes approved for adoption; foster families were interested in adopting, and the children were bonded to foster parents and to each other.
- ACCS moved for permanent custody. The juvenile court granted permanent custody to ACCS under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) (12+ months’ temporary custody in a consecutive 22‑month period) and also referenced abandonment and R.C. 2151.414(B)(2). Appellants (Mother and T.S., Sr.) appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody was proper under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) (best‑interest inquiry) | Mother/T.S. Sr.: children are bonded to Mother and siblings; Mother made significant late progress (drug‑free tests, treatment participation, employment, parenting classes); GAL recommended continued reunification to keep siblings together | ACCS: children need legally secure, stable placement; Mother’s progress was recent and incomplete (no completed substance‑treatment, unstable housing, short employment history); foster parents approved and willing to adopt | Affirmed. Court found competent, credible evidence supporting best‑interest finding and permanent custody under B(1)(d) |
| Whether the court erred in finding, under R.C. 2151.414(B)(2), that the children could not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time | T.S. Sr.: Mother’s late progress and GAL’s view support that reunification within a reasonable time was possible | ACCS/Court: B(2) pathway and its procedural predicates did not apply here because ACCS moved under D(1)/B(1)(d); B(1)(d) does not require a B(2) finding | Held harmless / unnecessary. Court’s B(2) finding was unnecessary and any error harmless because permanent custody was proper under B(1)(d) |
| Effect of abandonment and prior terminations on placement analysis (R.C. 2151.414(E) factors) | Mother: not presumed abandoned; argued contacts and visits continued | ACCS: fathers (and facts re: T.S. Sr.) met statutory factors (presumptive abandonment for absent fathers; prior involuntary termination relevant under E(11)) | Court noted presumption of abandonment as to the absent fathers and found E(11) factors applicable to T.S. Sr.; but ultimate grant rested on B(1)(d) best‑interest showing |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for reviewing manifest‑weight challenges to factual findings)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (1997) (deference to trial court credibility determinations)
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (2008) (clear‑and‑convincing standard governs permanent custody findings)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of the clear‑and‑convincing evidence standard)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (no single statutory best‑interest factor is dispositive; court must consider the totality of circumstances)