2022 Ohio 677
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Mother and Father moved to Ohio in July 2019; children were removed August 29, 2019 after concerns about homelessness, Mother’s mental health, and child safety; TCJFS obtained emergency temporary custody and later moved for permanent custody.
- Case plans required psychological evaluations, parenting classes (Goodwill), housing/income verification, counseling, and drug testing; Parents participated unevenly and did not successfully complete parenting classes.
- Psychological testing diagnosed Mother with severe mental-health issues (including bipolar with psychosis and personality disorders); Mother refused prescribed psychotropic medication and changed counselors frequently; Father was assessed as dependent and codependent with Mother.
- Child 1 placed in therapeutic foster care and wished adoption; Child 2 exhibited severe behavioral problems and is in a restrictive/residential facility; Child 3 (and a newborn sibling) are bonded to the foster family.
- The trial court found the children had been in TCJFS custody 12 of the prior 22 months, concluded Parents failed to remedy conditions, and granted TCJFS permanent custody on August 4, 2021; Parents appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonable-efforts to reunify (Mother) | Mother: TCJFS failed to make reasonable efforts to reunite her with the children. | TCJFS: developed and offered case-plan services (counseling, parenting classes, evaluations); courts previously found reasonable efforts. | Court: TCJFS made reasonable efforts; prior reasonable-efforts findings stood; assignment overruled. |
| Sufficiency of evidence / best interest (Mother) | Mother: permanent custody not supported by clear and convincing evidence; not in children’s best interests. | TCJFS: Parents failed to remedy conditions, children need stability; 12-of-22-months statutory basis exists. | Court: evidence met clear-and-convincing standard; best-interest factors favor TCJFS; permanent custody affirmed. |
| Relative placement / ICPC for aunt (Mother & Father) | Parents: TCJFS failed to pursue placement with maternal aunt (Jimilah Lundy) or initiate ICPC. | TCJFS: relative was unsuitable or unaware of children’s needs; agency considered relatives; no obligation to prefer relative placement over best interest. | Court: no statutory duty to favor relative placement; aunt’s home was unsuitable/ill-informed; trial court did not err. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498, 857 N.E.2d 532 (2006) (court may consider relative placement but statute does not require favoring non-termination placements over child’s best interest)
- In re Adoption of Ridenour, 61 Ohio St.3d 319, 574 N.E.2d 1055 (1991) (permanent placement should foster growth, stability, and security)
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (1978) (appellate review: affirm if some competent, credible evidence supports judgment)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 862 N.E.2d 816 (2007) (discusses reasonable-efforts determinations in permanent-custody context)