2021 Ohio 763
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background:
- Nov. 2018: Police responded after father reported mother appeared under the influence; officers found drug paraphernalia accessible to the children, an unkempt home, and no food; both parents arrested for child endangering.
- Juvenile court placed Z.C. (5) and L.C. (7) in emergency shelter care and then temporary custody with Huron County DJFS; children were placed with a foster family related to the father.
- Mother admitted an abuse allegation; the court ordered substance-abuse and mental-health assessments and a reunification-focused case plan (substance abuse, domestic violence, housing, parenting, random drug screens, visitation, couples counseling).
- Over 22 months DJFS provided services and referrals but parents repeatedly failed to complete treatment, experienced relapses and incarcerations, lived in inappropriate housing, and maintained unsafe associations; children exhibited significant trauma and received therapy.
- Feb.–Mar. 2020: DJFS moved for permanent custody (including an amended motion alleging 12+ months of temporary custody in a consecutive 22-month period); foster parents wanted to adopt.
- Sept. 2020 dispositional hearing: juvenile court found clear and convincing evidence under R.C. 2151.414(E) and (D) that the children could not be placed with the parents within a reasonable time and that granting permanent custody to DJFS was in the children’s best interests; mother appealed only the best-interests finding.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (DJFS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the children cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time under R.C. 2151.414(E) | Mother argued she complied with some treatment, attended visits, returned to work, and needed more time to continue counseling and provide a safe home | DJFS argued parents repeatedly failed to remedy conditions despite reasonable case planning and efforts over 22 months (noncompliance, relapses, incarcerations, unstable housing) | Court: Held there was clear and convincing evidence under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) that parents failed continuously and repeatedly to remedy conditions; prong satisfied |
| Whether granting permanent custody to DJFS is in the children’s best interests under R.C. 2151.414(D) | Mother argued bond with children and resumed visitation supported reunification prospects; contended children’s behaviors were due to reduced contact during COVID-19 | DJFS pointed to children’s traumatic history, improved stability/bonding in foster home, need for legally secure placement, and GAL recommendation for termination | Court: Held clear and convincing evidence supported best-interests finding (considering interaction, GAL wishes, custodial history, need for legally secure placement); affirmed permanent custody |
Key Cases Cited
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (defines the clear-and-convincing evidence standard)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (agency need only prove one R.C. 2151.414(E) factor to support finding that child cannot be placed with parent)