In re W.H.
2015 Ohio 4360
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Child W.H., Jr., born June 15, 2014, tested positive for opiates at birth and has ongoing medical/developmental needs; placed in foster care from birth and remained in same foster placement.
- SCDJFS obtained temporary custody July 9, 2014; moved for permanent custody March 31, 2015; permanent custody hearing June 8, 2015.
- Father (W.H., Sr.) has extensive criminal history (including felonious assault for stabbing the child’s mother) and was incarcerated for heroin possession at the time of the permanent custody hearing.
- Father visited the child 11 times before incarceration, with limited engagement during visits; he had no contact from December 11, 2014, through the June 8, 2015 hearing (over 90 days).
- Father completed only an initial substance abuse assessment and did not follow recommended treatment; he would not be released from prison until September 2015 and had not remedied conditions that led to removal.
- Trial court found abandonment, concluded the child could not be placed with father within a reasonable time, and that permanent custody to SCDJFS was in the child’s best interest; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (SCDJFS) | Defendant's Argument (W.H., Sr.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether father abandoned the child under R.C. 2151.011(C) | Father had no contact >90 days; statutory presumption of abandonment applies | Visits occurred regularly until incarceration; incarceration period should not count | Court: Abandonment found; lack of contact >90 days supports presumption (affirmed) |
| Whether child cannot be placed with father within a reasonable time (R.C. 2151.414(E)) | Father failed to remedy conditions despite case plan (minimal compliance); incarceration and unresolved substance/criminal issues prevent timely placement | Father intends to comply after release and participated in some programs in custody | Court: Clear and convincing evidence that child cannot be placed within reasonable time (affirmed) |
| Whether permanent custody is in the child’s best interest (R.C. 2151.414(D)) | Child has serious medical needs, is thriving in foster home, weak bond to father, needs legally secure placement | Father argues future plans for housing/employment and participation in programs after release support reunification | Court: Best interest favored permanent custody to SCDJFS given child’s needs, custodial history, and lack of parental remediation (affirmed) |
| Procedural sufficiency/weight of evidence | SCDJFS: Trial record contains competent, credible evidence supporting findings | Father: Challenges manifest weight and sufficiency on all findings | Court: Deference to trial court on credibility; record contains competent, credible evidence supporting all findings (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (defines "clear and convincing" standard)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (1985) (applies clear-and-convincing standard in custody/adoption context)
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (1990) (appellate review requires evidence sufficient to satisfy degree of proof)
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (1978) (trial-court factual findings supported when competent, credible evidence exists)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (1984) (deference to trial court on witness credibility due to firsthand observations)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (1997) (importance of trial-court deference in child custody matters)