In re W.J.T.
2019 Ohio 3051
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Child W.T., born 2003, was removed from Mother’s custody in 2005 and lived with relatives/others; BCDJFS filed a dependency complaint in Aug. 2016 after placement instability and serious behavioral/mental-health concerns (homicidal/suicidal, medication noncompliance).
- W.T. was placed in agency temporary custody in Aug. 2016, briefly returned to a family friend (M.M.) in Mar. 2017, then back to agency custody in Nov. 2017 after violent incidents and escalating issues.
- Mother’s case plan (Aug. 2016) required substance-abuse treatment, mental-health treatment, in-home parenting, domestic-violence services, and random drug screens; Mother had repeated incarcerations, ongoing substance use (positive tests), unstable housing, and inconsistent participation in services.
- BCDJFS moved for permanent custody on Aug. 15, 2018, alleging W.T. had been in agency custody >12 of 22 months and could not be placed with Mother; a November 2018 permanent-custody hearing was held before a magistrate.
- Evidence included the caseworker’s testimony, guardian ad litem report recommending agency custody, social summaries, substance-abuse and counseling updates, and a failed home study for M.M.; Mother did not testify or present witnesses.
- The magistrate granted permanent custody to BCDJFS (finding best interest and the 12/22-month statutory prong), the juvenile court adopted the decision, and Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | BCDJFS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether granting permanent custody was in the child’s best interest | Mother argued there was insufficient evidence and the finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence; she asserted she participated in services when possible and blamed timing/housing for gaps | Agency argued Mother failed to remedy conditions (ongoing substance use, mental-health issues, incarcerations, unstable housing), W.T. needs legally secure placement, and statutory 12/22-month prong is met | Court affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supported best-interest finding; decision not against manifest weight |
| Whether statutory prong for permanent custody was met (12 of 22 months) | Mother did not dispute this finding | Agency showed W.T. was in temporary custody for the required period | Court found the 12/22-month requirement satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (requires clear-and-convincing proof before terminating parental rights)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for manifest-weight review; appellate deference to finder of fact)