In re Z.P.
2017 Ohio 6987
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- HCJFS removed five children in 2011 after allegations that the stepfather sexually abused 5-year-old D.P., who tested positive for gonorrhea; stepfather also tested positive. HCJFS filed for permanent custody in March 2012.
- Magistrate in 2015 found stepfather sexually abused D.P., concluded parents (including mother) lacked fitness, and awarded custody split: legal custody of three children to a paternal aunt and permanent custody of two children to HCJFS.
- The guardian ad litem (GAL) obtained additional in-camera interviews and evidence; the juvenile court in 2016 modified the magistrate’s decision, found the children could be placed with mother, and awarded legal custody to mother with limits on fathers’ contact.
- GAL appealed the juvenile court’s denial of HCJFS’s permanent-custody motion, arguing the court’s finding that mother had remedied the conditions that led to removal was against the weight of the evidence.
- Appellate court reviewed whether the juvenile court had clear-and-convincing evidence to find the children could safely be placed with mother and whether the best-interest factors supported returning the children.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (GAL/HCJFS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether children cannot or should not be placed with mother under R.C. 2151.414(E) | Mother failed to remedy conditions; she refused to acknowledge stepfather’s abuse and thus cannot protect children | Mother completed case-plan services and maintained visits; children's bond to her favors return | Reversed: evidence supported finding children should not be placed with mother under §2151.414(E) |
| Whether mother remedied the conditions that caused removal (E(1)) | Mother never acknowledged overwhelming evidence of stepfather’s abuse; continued association with him shows failure to remedy | Mother contends she completed services and was consistent in visits and support | Held mother failed to remedy underlying problem; finding otherwise was against weight of evidence |
| Whether mother is able/willing to protect children (E(4), E(14)) | Mother’s deceptive conduct, violation of orders, and ongoing relationship with stepfather show unwillingness/inability to protect children | Mother argues she supported D.P.’s therapy and complied with services | Held evidence supported findings of unwillingness/inability to protect; return to mother not appropriate |
| Best-interest determination under former R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) | Children need legally secure placement; foster family has provided stability and is willing to adopt | Children are bonded to mother and expressed desire to return to her | Held juvenile court’s best-interest conclusion favoring return to mother was against the weight of the evidence; permanent custody to HCJFS should be entered |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.H., 895 N.E.2d 809 (Ohio 2008) (defines "clear and convincing" evidence standard in juvenile custody context)