In re Z.C.
2023 Ohio 4703
Ohio2023Background
- The appeal concerns whether sufficiency-of-the-evidence, manifest-weight-of-the-evidence, or abuse-of-discretion is the proper standard for appellate review of orders granting permanent custody and terminating parental rights under R.C. 2151.414 in Ohio.
- The Ashtabula County Children Services Board (ACCSB) received emergency custody of Z.C. due to concerns about Z.C.'s mother’s home; D.C., the father, did not reside there.
- D.C. sought custody of Z.C., but the agency moved for permanent custody, and after a hearing, the magistrate granted the agency’s motion, finding it in Z.C.’s best interest.
- D.C. objected, claiming insufficient evidence to show he could not provide a legally secure placement; the trial and appellate courts overruled his objections and affirmed the grant of permanent custody using an abuse-of-discretion standard.
- The Eleventh District Court of Appeals certified a conflict, as other Ohio appellate districts applied sufficiency and/or manifest-weight review, not abuse of discretion.
- The Ohio Supreme Court accepted the certified conflict to resolve which appellate standard governs review of parental termination and permanent custody decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the correct appellate standard for review of a trial court's permanent custody and parental termination decision under R.C. 2151.414? | D.C.: Appellate courts should use sufficiency or manifest-weight review; evidence did not show he was unfit. | ACCSB: Abuse-of-discretion standard should apply; trial court findings are owed deference. | Sufficiency-of-the-evidence and/or manifest-weight-of-the-evidence are proper standards, not abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (defining clear and convincing evidence and standard for appellate review in such cases)
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1990) (reviewing court examines if sufficient evidence supports trial court's findings under clear and convincing standard)
- Masters v. Masters, 69 Ohio St.3d 83 (Ohio 1994) (distinguished as involving allocation of parental rights, not parental termination)
- Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1988) (distinguished, addressed custody allocation, not termination under R.C. 2151.414)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (explains distinction between sufficiency and manifest weight in civil cases)
- Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (sets forth deference owed to trial court's factual findings in manifest-weight review)