2021 Ohio 2022
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Z.S. (b. Jan. 19, 2019) was removed from parents shortly after birth; CSB filed a dependency and the juvenile court adjudicated Z.S. dependent.
- Mother previously had parental rights involuntarily terminated as to three older children; CSB obtained a statutory bypass of reasonable-efforts reunification for Mother.
- CSB initially offered services and the court adopted a case plan; Mother engaged early but later ceased participation, stopped taking prescribed medication, experienced homelessness, and maintained contact with Father.
- Father failed to engage, was found to have abandoned Z.S., and the court excused reasonable efforts as to him as well.
- CSB moved for permanent custody after assessing custodial options (including maternal grandmother); the juvenile court granted permanent custody to CSB and terminated both parents’ rights.
- Mother appealed, raising three assignments of error: (1) denial of right to be physically present at the hearing; (2) improper admission of expert testimony; (3) judgment contrary to manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | CSB’s / State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether court erred by holding permanent-custody hearing without mother physically present | Mother contends court committed (plain) constitutional error by not obtaining a waiver of physical presence | Mother voluntarily chose remote participation; she was represented by counsel and was able to participate meaningfully | Court: No error; mother effectively waived in-person presence and suffered no prejudice; assignment overruled |
| 2) Whether juvenile court improperly admitted expert testimony about Mother’s mental-health diagnoses | Mother argues psychological assistant’s testimony was expert opinion admitted in violation of Evid.R. 702 | State shows witness testified as a lay observer (Evid.R. 701); contested expert question was withdrawn; multiple other sources documented diagnoses | Court: No reversible error; testimony was lay-observation and any error was not prejudicial given other evidence of diagnoses |
| 3) Whether permanent custody award was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Mother argues she can now provide a legally secure, adequate home and that permanent custody was not supported | CSB points to (a) Mother’s prior involuntary terminations shifting burden to her under R.C. 2151.414(E)(11), (b) ongoing mental-health, housing, and engagement failures, (c) child’s bond with foster family and need for permanence | Court: Judgment affirmed — clear-and-convincing evidence supported finding child could not/should not be placed with Mother and that permanent custody was in child’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. White, 142 Ohio St.3d 277 (2015) (plain-error standard in criminal context)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997) (civil plain-error standard for extraordinary cases)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for reviewing manifest-weight claims)
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (1996) (permanent-custody statutory two-prong test)
- In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (1985) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (formulation of clear-and-convincing standard)