Background
Franklin County Children Services removed six children from Mother and Father’s home in February 2022 after police found one child unsupervised and covered in feces, two children locked in a bedroom, and two infants in a bedroom with Mother, who was sleeping. Both parents were jailed and charged with offenses relating only to one child. While they remained incarcerated and were unrepresented, the juvenile court adjudicated the children abused, neglected, or dependent, granted FCCS temporary custody, and—based on an inaccurate understanding of the criminal bond conditions—prohibited the parents from contacting all six children.
The parents ultimately completed many case-plan requirements, including parenting assessments and classes, psychological evaluations, obtaining stable housing and full-time employment, and consistently attending visits once contact was permitted. Nevertheless, FCCS sought permanent custody, and the juvenile court found that the children had been in agency custody for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, that permanent custody was in their best interests, and that FCCS had made reasonable reunification efforts. The court terminated both parents’ rights.
The Court’s Holding
The Tenth District held that the juvenile court’s best-interest determination was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Although the statutory 12-of-22-month condition was satisfied, the permanent-custody analysis contained pervasive factual and legal errors. The juvenile court incorrectly treated the criminal bond conditions as barring contact with every child, mischaracterized the adjudications of some children, failed to assess whether the parents themselves could provide a legally secure placement, and relied on criminal charges and convictions that did not qualify under the statutory provision it applied.
The appellate court reversed and vacated the permanent-custody judgment, reinstated FCCS’s temporary custody of all six children, and remanded for further proceedings. It instructed the juvenile court to require a new case plan that includes expanded, meaningful visitation sufficient to give the family a genuine opportunity for reunification and to conduct any necessary further hearings. The court expressed no view on whether FCCS might ultimately obtain permanent custody through a future request.
Key Takeaways
- Satisfying the 12-of-22-month custody condition does not eliminate the agency’s obligation to prove by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody serves the children’s best interests.
- A best-interest analysis must consider whether the parents—not only other relatives—can provide a safe, stable, and legally secure permanent placement.
- Erroneous no-contact findings that impair parent-child relationships cannot fairly support later conclusions that the parents and children lack a bond.
Why It Matters
The decision emphasizes the exacting scrutiny required before terminating parental rights. Courts must accurately evaluate the record, apply only the statutory factors that the evidence supports, and account for how government-imposed barriers may have affected family bonds and reunification efforts.
On remand, the family must receive a meaningful opportunity to work toward reunification through expanded visitation and a new case plan, while the children remain in FCCS’s temporary custody.