2023 Ohio 185
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Infant Verity born April 2019 tested positive for cocaine and marijuana; both parents admitted drug use and the child was removed days after birth.
- Father had earlier disciplined Verity's older half-sister with a belt; he was criminally convicted of disorderly conduct.
- Both children initially placed with maternal relatives, then moved to foster care after abuse findings and new concerns; Verity remained continuously in one foster home and formed strong bonds there.
- Parents participated in supervised visits but struggled to care for the children during visits, continued to minimize or deny the step-grandfather's prior sexual abuse of Mother, and maintained unsafe, cluttered housing conditions.
- Agency sought permanent custody; magistrate and juvenile court found statutory grounds (child in temporary custody 12+ of 22 months) and that granting permanent custody to the agency was in Verity's best interest.
- Father appealed arguing the agency failed to make reasonable reunification efforts by denying liberalized visitation and that the permanent custody decision was not supported by sufficient/weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether agency made reasonable efforts to reunify by denying liberalized visits | Father: denying less-supervised visits precluded progress toward reunification and therefore was not reasonable | Agency: visits were appropriately restricted because parents recently stopped substance use and still could not safely or consistently care for child | Court: Agency made reasonable efforts; late-stage liberalization would not have materially changed bonding or reunification prospects |
| Whether granting permanent custody was supported by sufficient evidence and was against manifest weight | Father: he completed case-plan services; liberalized visits would have strengthened bond; permanent custody was unnecessary | Agency: child had lived almost entire life with foster family, weak parent bond, parents failed to remediate conditions, safety concerns (step-grandfather, home conditions) | Court: clear and convincing evidence supported best-interest finding; permanent custody affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental rights are fundamental but not absolute)
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (1997) (recognition of parental liberty interest under Ohio law)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (agency must make reasonable reunification efforts before terminating rights)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (state must prove termination standards by clear and convincing evidence)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re D.A., 113 Ohio St.3d 88 (2007) (child's best interest controls in disposition)
- In re B.C., 141 Ohio St.3d 55 (2014) (acknowledging fundamental parental interest while emphasizing child's welfare)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (1979) (child welfare as the polestar in custody decisions)