2024 Ohio 827
Ohio Ct. App.2024Background
- The Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services (CCDCFS) filed for permanent custody of minor child T.S. after multiple prior interventions due to the mother's ongoing issues with substance abuse, unstable housing, and mental health crises.
- In 2017, T.S. was temporarily placed with a relative after the mother was found to have substance abuse and housing problems, but the custody was later returned after she completed services.
- In March 2023, the mother experienced a mental health crisis, threatening self-harm and harm to T.S. while intoxicated, leading to T.S.'s removal and placement with his maternal aunt.
- Mother participated in some services but was discharged unsuccessfully; she did not provide her address to the agency, had inconsistent engagement with caseworkers, and continued to have substance abuse and housing instability.
- The trial court terminated the mother's parental rights, finding T.S. could not or should not be placed with her within a reasonable time and that permanent custody to the agency was in T.S.'s best interest.
- Mother appealed on grounds that the judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence, that reasonable efforts to reunite the family were not made, and that her due process rights were violated.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | Agency's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manifest weight of the evidence | Close bond with T.S., appropriate visits, employed, and claims to have stable housing. | Ongoing issues with substance abuse, unstable housing, failure to benefit from services. | Affirmed: Sufficient evidence for custody. |
| Reasonable efforts to reunite the family | Agency failed to verify housing/employment, did not contact therapist, or pursue legal custody with relative. | Agency made repeated referrals to mental health, substance abuse, and housing services; parent failed to engage. | Affirmed: Reasonable efforts were made. |
| Due process | Agency did not present evidence supporting allegations, rushed process, and insufficient referrals. | Referrals were made over 10 years, multiple opportunities given, parent not deprived of rights. | Affirmed: No due process violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (parental rights are subject to the child's welfare as the ultimate consideration)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (defines abuse of discretion standard in custody decisions)
- Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (deference to trial court on witness credibility)
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 (any one best interest factor can support permanent custody)