Summary
This appellate opinion reviews the termination of a mother's parental rights and the grant of permanent custody of her child to Stark County Job and Family Services. The trial court found that the mother failed to substantially remedy conditions causing the child's removal, including homelessness, substance abuse, and lack of mental health treatment, while the father abandoned the child. The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that there was clear and convincing evidence supporting the permanent custody determination and that the decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred in granting permanent custody to SCJFS absent clear and convincing evidence.
- Whether the trial court erred in finding that SCJFS made reasonable and diligent efforts to reunify the family.
- Whether the trial court erred in denying Mother’s motion for a six‑month extension of temporary custody.
Holdings
- The trial court did not err; it properly found clear and convincing evidence supporting permanent custody to SCJFS.
- The trial court correctly found SCJFS made reasonable and diligent efforts; no error.
- The trial court did not err; R.C. 2151.415 does not permit a parent to seek an extension of temporary custody after a finding that the child cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time.
Key quotations
“Clear and convincing evidence is that evidence “which will provide in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.” Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 477 (1954).” (¶36)
“We find there is competent and credible evidence to support the trial court’s determination that SCJFS’ efforts were reasonable and diligent under the circumstances of the case and the trial court did not lose its way in its finding.” (¶54)
Factual background
Mother was homeless, used methamphetamines, failed to complete required substance‑abuse and parenting evaluations, and did not provide stable housing for C.K. The father was absent. SCJFS provided case planning and placed C.K. in temporary custody, later in a third‑party kinship home.
Procedural history
The trial court held a series of hearings, found C.K. a dependent child, adopted a case plan, and after a permanent custody hearing on November 13, 2024, entered a judgment on November 15, 2024 granting permanent custody to SCJFS. Mother appealed alleging lack of clear and convincing evidence and error in denying a six‑month extension of temporary custody.