2022 Ohio 2342
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Three oldest daughters (born 2013, 2014, 2016) were removed after contemporaneous reports of parental domestic violence, parental drug use (mother), and unsupervised children found alone; paternal grandmother initially cared for children under safety plans.
- Agency developed case plans requiring parenting classes, substance‑abuse treatment and random drug screens for T.P., mental‑health treatment, medication compliance and psychological evaluation for W.G., stable housing and income, and supervised visitation.
- Parents had intermittent compliance: T.P. completed parenting classes and had periods of clean screens but relapsed into crack/cocaine use, missed treatment and testing, and gave birth to additional children while allegedly using; W.G., diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, at times refused medication, acted erratically during visits, lost housing, and missed counseling.
- Multiple in‑home and out‑of‑home safety plans and efforts to locate kin caregivers were attempted; children were placed in the Agency’s temporary custody in December 2020 and remained in foster care.
- In September 2021 the Agency moved for permanent custody; the juvenile court found the Agency made reasonable reunification efforts and, by clear and convincing evidence, permanent custody to the Agency was in the children’s best interests. Appellants appealed; the Seventh District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Agency made reasonable efforts to reunify the family (T.P.) | Agency failed to make adequate reunification efforts | Agency used multiple safety plans, provided referrals, communicated case goals, and sought kin placement; efforts were reasonable | Court: Agency made reasonable efforts under R.C. 2151.419(A)(1) |
| Whether granting permanent custody and terminating parental rights was supported by the evidence / an abuse of discretion (W.G.; T.P. claims manifest weight error) | Parents argued the termination was not supported; emphasized partial compliance (parenting class, visitation) | Agency argued parents failed to maintain sobriety, mental‑health treatment, medication compliance, housing, and income—risk to children persisted | Court: Termination supported by clear and convincing evidence; no abuse of discretion; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (Ohio 1990) (recognizing parental rights as a fundamental civil right)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (parental interest in custody is fundamental)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (standard and weight of proof required in parental‑rights termination)
- In re Smith, 77 Ohio App.3d 1 (Ohio App. 1991) (termination of parental rights equated to severe deprivation; courts must afford full protections)
- In re Estate of Haynes, 25 Ohio St.3d 101 (Ohio 1986) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (defining "reasonable efforts" to prevent removal or permit return)