2021 Ohio 2031
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- CCDCFS became involved in December 2016 after the youngest child suffered suspicious injuries; the Children were initially removed and later reunified with Mother, then removed again in August 2018.
- CCDCFS returned the Children to temporary custody on August 28, 2018, and filed for permanent custody on June 21, 2019.
- At the September 3, 2020 hearing CCDCFS presented caseworker and visitation testimony showing Mother repeatedly refused or failed to engage in case-plan services (parenting, mental-health referrals), had significant and observable mental‑health episodes, and displayed volatile behavior during visits.
- The Children have significant behavioral and mental‑health needs (diagnoses including PTSD, depression, ODD); they receive counseling/medication and at least one child is in residential treatment.
- Relatives were investigated but deemed unsuitable for placement; the guardian ad litem recommended granting permanent custody to the agency.
- On September 8, 2020 the juvenile court terminated Mother’s parental rights and awarded permanent custody to CCDCFS; Mother appealed arguing the decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence and that COVID‑related tolling should extend the statutory two‑year custody limit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination of parental rights was against the manifest weight / unsupported by clear and convincing evidence under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) and best‑interest analysis (D). | Mother contends the court’s decision was against the manifest weight and that the evidence did not support that the children could not or should not be returned within a reasonable time. | CCDCFS argued the record showed Mother failed to remedy conditions, has severe chronic emotional illness, neglected the children, lacked commitment and failed case‑plan compliance; no suitable relative placements; thus statutory (E) factors and best‑interest (D) factors were met by clear and convincing evidence. | Affirmed. Court found clear and convincing evidence supporting R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) via E(1),(2),(3),(4),(14) findings and that permanent custody was in the children’s best interest under D(2). |
| Whether the Ohio Supreme Court’s COVID‑19 tolling order extended the statutory two‑year temporary‑custody limit (R.C. 2151.415) and thereby delayed CCDCFS’s eligibility to seek permanent custody. | Mother asserted the Supreme Court’s tolling order should give her additional time to comply with the case plan (effectively extending the two‑year custody clock). | CCDCFS argued the tolling order only tolled time requirements imposed by court rules, not statutory deadlines; the two‑year limit is statutory and thus unaffected. | Affirmed. Court held the tolling order does not alter statutory time limits; the two‑year custody limit remained applicable and the children had been in agency custody over two years. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (standard for appellate review of trial court factual findings).
- In re S.C., 115 N.E.3d 813 (8th Dist. 2018) (clear‑and‑convincing evidence required for termination of parental rights).
- In re Tolling of Time Requirements Imposed by Rules Promulgated by the Supreme Court & Use of Technology, 158 Ohio St.3d 1447, 141 N.E.3d 974 (Ohio 2020) (tolling order applies to court rules, not statutory deadlines).