2022 Ohio 3199
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- ACCSB obtained temporary custody of eight children in early 2019; Father is the biological father of four, including the subject child Z.C., who never resided with Father during the proceedings.
- Six siblings were placed with kin and later legally placed with those families; Z.C. and his half-brother L.T. were placed in the same foster home in March 2020.
- Father first contacted ACCSB in March 2019 and again after a 2020 prison release; he sought custody but refused to be placed on the agency’s case plan and failed to complete home visits or cooperate with workers.
- ACCSB moved for permanent custody in August 2020; the juvenile court granted permanent custody to ACCSB on March 2, 2022, terminating Father’s parental rights; the foster family seeks to adopt Z.C. and L.T.
- The GAL did not recommend placement with Father because she could not observe interaction; the trial court found Father’s limited engagement and lack of compliance weighed against reunification.
- The appellate court affirmed the permanent-custody grant but sua sponte certified a conflict to the Ohio Supreme Court on the appropriate appellate standard of review for termination-of-parental-rights cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (ACCSB) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported awarding permanent custody to ACCSB | Father: ACCSB failed to meaningfully engage him; GAL did not recommend permanent custody; evidence insufficient for firm belief to terminate rights | ACCSB: Child had been in agency custody >12 of 22 months; Father failed to cooperate, maintain contact, or complete case-plan steps; foster bond exists | Affirmed — record contains clear and convincing evidence supporting permanent custody (no abuse of discretion) |
| Whether granting permanent custody was contrary to Z.C.’s best interests because it risks severing sibling ties | Father: Permanent custody would permanently separate Z.C. from siblings and Father; adoptive families can and will maintain contact | ACCSB: Some adoptive families expressed willingness to keep contacts; Father’s promises outweighed by his past noncompliance and lack of demonstrated ability to provide stable placement | Affirmed — court found child’s need for a legally secure placement and Father’s conduct outweighed sibling-separation concerns |
Key Cases Cited
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (1996) (sets forth statutory two-prong permanent-custody framework)
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (2008) (defines clear-and-convincing evidence standard)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (1985) (party seeking termination/adoption bears burden of clear and convincing proof)
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (1997) (recognizes parental custody as a fundamental, paramount right)
- Whitelock v. Gilbane Bldg. Co., 66 Ohio St.3d 594 (1993) (explains requirements for certifying appellate conflict to Ohio Supreme Court)