Background
Stark County’s child-services agency became involved after learning that S.F. permitted C.P.—R.F.’s father, A.F.’s uncle, and a convicted sex offender assessed as presenting a heightened recidivism risk—to live with the children. The agency instructed that C.P. have no unsupervised contact with them, but he did not complete recommended treatment. Mother later continued supporting him even after allegations that he sexually assaulted A.F. were substantiated.
The children were adjudicated dependent and placed in the agency’s temporary custody. During the case, mother did not complete her parenting evaluation, made little progress in mental-health treatment, withheld information needed to assess her housing and employment, threatened agency personnel and the children’s placement, and posted sensitive case information online. After the children had spent more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period in temporary custody, the juvenile court terminated mother’s parental rights and awarded permanent custody to the agency.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed. Applying manifest-weight review, the court held that competent, credible evidence supported the finding that permanent custody was in the children’s best interests. Although both children missed mother and wished to reunify, the record showed that mother had not remedied the safety concerns leading to removal, remained unwilling to protect the children from C.P., and had encouraged their disruptive behavior. The agency also investigated several relatives, but none provided an appropriate and available kinship placement.
The court also rejected mother’s argument that the juvenile court should have appointed independent counsel for the children. Because mother did not raise the issue below, review was limited to plain error. The juvenile court knew the children’s wishes from the guardian ad litem’s reports, the caseworker’s testimony, and its own in-camera interviews, and mother did not show that appointing separate counsel would have changed the outcome.
Key Takeaways
- A child’s placement in agency custody for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period satisfies the statutory temporal ground for permanent custody, though the court must still determine the child’s best interests.
- A child’s desire to reunify is one best-interest factor and does not outweigh evidence that the parent remains unable or unwilling to provide a safe, stable home.
- A parent who does not request independent counsel for the children in the juvenile court generally forfeits the issue absent the exceptional circumstances required for civil plain-error review.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that nominal participation in a case plan is insufficient when the parent fails to make meaningful progress on the conditions that caused removal. Courts may consider a parent’s lack of insight, refusal to cooperate, continuing support for a person posing a substantiated sexual-safety risk, and conduct undermining the children’s placements.
It also underscores the importance of preserving a request for separate counsel in the trial court. Evidence that children want reunification does not alone establish a conflict requiring appointment of independent counsel, particularly when their wishes are already before the court and the parent cannot demonstrate prejudice.