Edwards v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.
2017 Ohio 2675
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Stephen and Constance Edwards, long-time certified foster parents in Greene County, housed and later adopted Daniel, who was 19 at relevant times.
- Daniel was arrested March 20, 2013, and pled guilty May 2, 2013, to a fourth-degree misdemeanor (impersonating an officer); appellants did not report the conviction within 24 hours.
- On May 10, 2013, during recertification, appellants answered "no" when asked whether any household members had been arrested, charged, or convicted; GCCS later concluded they violated reporting rules.
- Ohio Adm.Code 5101:2-7-14(H) required notification to the recommending agency within 24 hours of any charge or conviction by an adult resident; failure to notify "shall result" in recommendation to ODJFS to seek revocation.
- ODJFS hearing examiner recommended revocation; the director adopted the recommendation (finding objections untimely); Franklin C.P. affirmed; appellants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ODJFS lawfully revoked foster certification for failure to report a resident's conviction within 24 hours | Edwards: GCCS/ODJFS should have discretion to use a corrective action plan instead of automatic revocation; the foster care manual allows remediation | ODJFS: The administrative rule mandates reporting and prescribes recommendation to seek revocation for failures; prior guidance to GCCS was procedural, not dispositive | Court: Upheld revocation — rule is explicit, ODJFS properly applied it and had no duty to follow GCCS manual over the Code |
| Whether ODJFS was biased or violated due process by advising GCCS before deciding revocation | Edwards: ODJFS's prior advisement to GCCS effectively prejudged the matter, denying impartial decisionmaking | ODJFS: Advice to GCCS concerned recommended action by GCCS; the hearing process afforded appellants full opportunity to present facts | Court: No due-process violation — record shows appellants had a fair hearing and no evidence of examiner bias |
| Whether the director erred in finding appellants' objections to the hearing examiner's report untimely | Edwards: Service on both appellant and counsel required; deadline should run from counsel's service to avoid unfairness | ODJFS: Rule plainly states objections due within ten days after appellant receives the report; appellants were served Dec 13 and filed late on Dec 26 | Court: Objections were untimely under the regulation; director did not err |
| Whether subsequent recertification by ODJFS undermines or requires vacating the earlier revocation | Edwards: ODJFS later recertified appellants, effectively waiving the violation and showing reinterpretation | ODJFS: Later recertification is a separate, subsequent action and not "newly discovered" evidence for review under R.C. 119.12(K) | Court: Subsequent recertification irrelevant to legality of the original adjudication; motion to vacate properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Our Place, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 63 Ohio St.3d 570 (Ohio 1992) (standard: affirm agency order if in accordance with law and supported by reliable, probative, substantial evidence)
- State ex rel. Celebrezze v. Natl. Lime & Stone Co., 68 Ohio St.3d 377 (Ohio 1994) (deference to an agency's interpretation of its own rules when consistent with statute and plain language)
- In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (U.S. 1955) (due process requires a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal)
- West Virginia v. Ohio Hazardous Waste Facility Approval Bd., 28 Ohio St.3d 83 (Ohio 1986) (presumption that administrative agency decisions are valid and reached in a sound manner)
- Henry's Cafe, Inc. v. Bd. of Liquor Control, 170 Ohio St. 233 (Ohio 1960) (courts may not modify an administrative penalty if authorized by law and supported by the record)