In re A.C.B.
2017 Ohio 4127
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mother Petrina Bishop’s two children were placed in Portage County Department of Job and Family Services (PCDJFS) temporary custody after dependency complaints based on parental drug use, domestic violence, and related criminal arrests.
- PCDJFS obtained and maintained temporary custody; a case plan was adopted and an initial six‑month extension of custody was granted.
- PCDJFS later moved for legal custody to be awarded to the maternal grandparents, Pamela and Charles Wise, with whom the children had lived since November 2014.
- Bishop moved for a six‑month extension of temporary custody (seeking more time to reunify) and objected to the grandparents’ intervention; the trial court dismissed Bishop’s extension motion, permitted permissive intervention by Pamela Wise, and granted legal custody to the Wises.
- Key factual findings: Bishop had periods of compliance with the case plan but relapsed (positive drug tests, conviction history, incarceration/NEOCAP placement), lacked stable housing and employment at the hearing; the children had improved materially while living with the Wises.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bishop) | Defendant's Argument (PCDJFS / Wises) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a parent may move for a six‑month extension of temporary custody under R.C. 2151.415 | Bishop argued she should be allowed to move for an extension so she could get more time to reunify | Statute and Juvenile Rule limit extension motions to the agency (PCDJFS); parents cannot request the extension procedure | Court held only the agency may request extensions under R.C. 2151.415; Bishop’s motion properly dismissed |
| Whether grandparents may intervene in juvenile custody proceedings | Bishop argued Pamela Wise lacked right to intervene (no in loco parentis or prior parental control) | PCDJFS and Wise sought same relief (custody to Wises); permissive intervention under Civ.R. 24(B) was appropriate and within court’s discretion | Court upheld permissive intervention as a discretionary trial‑court decision and found no prejudice to Bishop |
| Whether legal custody should be awarded to the grandparents instead of reunification with the mother | Bishop argued her partial compliance plus six more months would have sufficed for reunification | PCDJFS/Wises pointed to mother’s relapse, missed treatment, criminal convictions, lack of housing/employment, and children’s progress/stability with grandparents | Court found placement with Wises was in the children’s best interest and affirmed award of legal custody to the grandparents |
| Whether denial of Bishop’s extension motion violated due process or equal protection | Bishop claimed procedural due process denial (no hearing on her extension motion) and unequal treatment because only PCDJFS may seek extensions | State interests and statutory scheme permit agency‑initiated extensions; Bishop had hearings on custody and opportunity to be heard on reunification progress; parents are not similarly situated to the agency | Court rejected constitutional challenges and found no procedural or equal protection violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Roxane Laboratories, Inc. v. Tracy, 75 Ohio St.3d 125, 661 N.E.2d 1011 (1996) (statutory construction—apply clear language when unambiguous)
- Conley v. Shearer, 64 Ohio St.3d 284, 595 N.E.2d 862 (1992) (equal protection: law that operates identically on all people under like circumstances does not violate clause)
- State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120, 489 N.E.2d 277 (1986) (failure to raise constitutional issues at trial generally constitutes waiver)
- In re M.D., 38 Ohio St.3d 149, 527 N.E.2d 286 (1988) (court may consider waived constitutional issues in plain‑error or exceptional cases)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (Mathews balancing test for procedural due process)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 679 N.E.2d 1099 (1997) (plain‑error doctrine standards)
- In re B.C., 141 Ohio St.3d 55, 2014-Ohio-4558 (2014) (discussing Mathews factors in juvenile context)
- State ex rel. N.G. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Div., 147 Ohio St.3d 432, 2016-Ohio-1519 (2016) (standard of review for motion to intervene)