2021 Ohio 1774
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Parents Gabriel S. (father) and Amanda T. (mother) share three children (G.S., M.S., X.S.); Amanda also had twins (S.S., W.S.) in 2019 with another father. Children entered Mercer County Department of Job and Family Services (MCDJFS) custody after parental drug overdoses/usage in April 2017.
- X.S., M.S., and G.S. remained in MCDJFS temporary custody from April 2017 except for a brief placement with Amanda in August 2019; S.S. and W.S. were removed in August 2019.
- MCDJFS filed motions for permanent custody of all five children on April 20, 2020; the permanent-custody hearing occurred July 29–30, 2020.
- Amanda has an ongoing substance-use history: periods of sobriety but multiple positive drug tests (late 2019–April 2020); she used outpatient counseling and briefly avoided recommended inpatient treatment.
- Gabriel objected to proposed case-plan amendments (visitation location/frequency and drug-testing site) but did not file written proposed changes or a written hearing request as required by R.C. 2151.412(F)(2).
- Trial court granted MCDJFS permanent custody as to all five children on October 1, 2020; both parents appealed and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether permanent custody award was against manifest weight (Amanda) | Amanda: trial court lacked clear and convincing evidence that children could not be placed with her within a reasonable time | MCDJFS: Amanda’s repeated relapses, ongoing exposure to drug-using associate, and incomplete treatment showed she could not safely resume parenting | Held: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supports permanency (E)(1) and (B)(1)(d) findings for older kids; (E)(1) supports S.S./W.S. |
| 2) Whether case plans lacked required adoption plans under R.C. 2151.413(E) (Amanda) | Amanda: proposed case plans filed July 30, 2020 didn’t document recruitment efforts or an adequate adoption plan | MCDJFS: plans listed adoption as permanency goal, noted foster parents willing to adopt, and identified matching intent | Held: Affirmed — adoption goal and foster-parent willingness satisfied statutory requirement |
| 3) Whether court erred by adopting amended case plan without holding additional hearing after oral objections (Gabriel) | Gabriel: court had to hold additional hearing under R.C. 2151.412 after his counsel objected orally | MCDJFS: Gabriel’s submissions were actually proposed amendments (not timely written objections) and he failed to follow statutory notice procedure | Held: Affirmed — objections were de facto proposed changes that required written filing/notice; no prejudice shown from no extra hearing |
| 4) Whether MCDJFS failed to make reasonable efforts to prevent removal/reunify (Gabriel) | Gabriel: agency did not use reasonable case planning and efforts toward reunification | MCDJFS: reasonable efforts were made over the multi-year history; court had previously made reasonable-efforts findings | Held: Affirmed — trial court had earlier reasonable-efforts findings; record supports agency efforts and no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for manifest-weight review in civil cases)
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (2008) (permanent-custody decisions require clear and convincing proof)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (agency must show reasonable efforts; timing of reasonable-efforts findings)
- In re T.R., 120 Ohio St.3d 136 (2008) (adoption plan may be added to a case plan after a motion for permanent custody)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (parents’ fundamental liberty interest and proof standards for termination of parental rights)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) (parental custody is a fundamental right)