In re X.H.
2022 Ohio 779
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2022Background
- Mother was the legal custodian of five children but had left them in the care of maternal grandparents for ~4 years; grandparents' home was unsafe (filth, infestations, no beds, appliance hazards), prompting CSB removal.
- CSB filed dependency complaints for all five children; Mother stipulated that X.H. and M.H. were dependent; the juvenile court placed X.H. with a kinship caregiver and M.H. in CSB temporary custody and adopted a reunification case plan.
- Case-plan requirements for Mother included mental-health and parenting assessments with follow‑through, securing appropriate housing for five children, and full‑time employment.
- Mother engaged sporadically: underwent a mental‑health assessment (cyclothymic disorder), refused in‑home parenting services, failed to apply coaching in visits, showed inappropriate adult-level interactions with X.H., and lacked adequate housing; Father was largely uninvolved.
- CSB moved for permanent custody of X.H. and M.H.; the juvenile court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) applied (parents failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy conditions) and that permanent custody was in the children’s best interest.
- Mother appealed raising (1) due‑process/notice and reasonable‑efforts arguments tied to alleged lack of service on Father, and (2) a manifest‑weight challenge to the permanent custody award; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | CSB’s / Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother may challenge lack of service on Father and related due‑process/reasonable‑efforts claims on Father’s behalf | Lack of proper service on Father denied Father opportunity to participate, rendering agency’s reunification efforts illusory and prejudicing Mother | Mother lacks standing to raise Father’s personal‑jurisdiction/service defect unless she shows actual prejudice; here allegations are speculative and Father had no meaningful prior relationship | Mother lacks standing to raise service/notice issue for Father; appellate court declines to address substance |
| Whether permanent custody award was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Juvenile court erred; evidence did not support termination or denial of Mother’s motions for legal custody/extension | CSB proved by clear and convincing evidence (E(1)) that parents failed continuously and repeatedly to remedy conditions and that permanent custody is in children’s best interest | Affirmed: evidence supports E(1) finding and best‑interest determination; denial of legal custody/extension upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for manifest‑weight review and presumption in favor of the factfinder)
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (1996) (describing the two‑prong permanent‑custody test)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (1985) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (clarifying the clear‑and‑convincing evidence standard)