2017 Ohio 1398
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- HCJFS removed six children from Y.M. in Feb. 2014 (neglect/abuse/dependency allegations) and placed them in temporary custody; a seventh child (K.H.2) was added after birth in Oct. 2014 and later adjudicated dependent.
- HCJFS implemented a case plan: domestic-violence assessment and Women Helping Women group, therapy and recommended psychological/CPST services, homemaker services, and supervised visitation.
- Services were inconsistently completed: Y.M. completed some programs but missed therapy and homemaker appointments, refused/limited home inspections at times, and failed to complete a recommended psychological assessment or CPST. Visitation remained at highest-supervision level.
- HCJFS moved to convert temporary custody to permanent custody for five children (W.M., T.M., M.J., K.H.1, K.H.2) on Sept. 18, 2015 (two older children had aged out). Magistrate granted permanent custody; trial court adopted that decision.
- Y.M. appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence that children could not/should not be placed with parents within a reasonable time (R.C. 2151.414(E)(1)); (2) motion for permanent custody was premature because required case-plan services (psychological assessment) were not provided; and (3) court failed to account for T.M.’s wish to return to Y.M.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Y.M.) | Defendant's Argument (HCJFS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody was supported by clear and convincing evidence under former R.C. 2151.414(B) (parents cannot or should not have custody within reasonable time) | Y.M. argued she had remedied conditions (home, services) and thus children could be returned | HCJFS argued services were repeatedly not completed, conditions persisted, visits remained highly supervised, and parental issues (domestic violence, failure to complete assessments) remained | Court held competent, credible evidence supported magistrate that services failed to remedy conditions and children could not/should not be returned; permanent custody affirmed |
| Whether the court properly considered T.M.’s expressed wishes | Y.M. claimed trial court ignored T.M.’s wish to return to her | HCJFS (and GAL) asserted T.M. later expressed desire to be adopted; separate counsel for T.M. eventually concurred | Court found the record reflected T.M.’s ultimate desire for adoption; trial court did not err |
| Whether HCJFS’s motion for permanent custody was premature under R.C. 2151.413(D)(3)(b) because a psychological assessment had not been scheduled/completed | Y.M. argued HCJFS filed before providing case-plan services necessary to safely return children | HCJFS argued the psychological assessment was one of many services, attempts were made to schedule it, and Y.M. failed to complete it despite outreach; also R.C. 2151.419 reasonable-efforts requirement does not bar R.C. 2151.413 motions | Court held the statutory bar inapplicable (In re C.F.): magistrate/trial court found reasonable efforts had been made; motion was not premature |
Key Cases Cited
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (Ohio 1954) (defines clear-and-convincing evidence standard)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 862 N.E.2d 816 (Ohio 2007) (R.C. 2151.419 reasonable-efforts rule does not preclude filing R.C. 2151.413 permanent-custody motions; agency must show reasonable efforts at hearing)