Background
CCDCFS obtained temporary custody of J.F. after she was adjudicated neglected and dependent, then moved for permanent custody. It sought permanent custody of J.F.’s brother, E.F., in its original neglect-and-dependency complaint after law enforcement found him living in an unfinished basement without electricity, where he said he had lived for about six months. Both children were teenagers and doing well in treatment foster placements at the time of trial.
Father was serving a 30-month prison sentence, with a scheduled June 2027 release date. He had maintained correspondence with J.F. but had not contacted E.F. for more than 90 days and had not sought custody of either child. Father argued that his anticipated programming and possible earlier release could allow reunification.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed the judgments granting CCDCFS permanent custody of both children. Competent, credible evidence supported the finding that Father was incarcerated when the permanent-custody filings were made and would not be available to care for either child for at least 18 months thereafter, satisfying R.C. 2151.414(E)(12). His potential earlier release depended on uncertain completion of programming and did not undermine that finding.
The court also upheld the abandonment finding as to E.F., concluding that Father’s lack of contact for more than 90 days triggered the statutory presumption and that his unsuccessful attempt to send one letter did not rebut it. Because one R.C. 2151.414(E) factor was sufficient, the court did not address the repeated-incarceration finding. The best-interest determination was supported by the children’s wishes, the GAL’s recommendation, Father’s lack of a custodial relationship, and the children’s need for stable, legally secure placements.
Key Takeaways
- An incarcerated parent’s possible early release based on uncompleted programming is too uncertain to defeat an 18-month-incarceration finding.
- More than 90 days without contact may establish abandonment, including where the parent is incarcerated.
- A single proven R.C. 2151.414(E) condition requires a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with the parent.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that Ohio courts may prioritize a child’s immediate need for permanence over a parent’s prospective rehabilitation plan when the plan remains uncertain. It also confirms that teenage children’s stated wishes and a GAL’s recommendation can strongly support a permanent-custody determination when the record shows the children are stable in placement and the parent cannot presently provide care.