In re A.D.
2022 Ohio 736
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2022Background
- Three children: twins A.D. and M.D. (b. 2008) and half-brother T.M.-E. (b. 2011) were removed after a report that T.M.-E. was physically abused by maternal uncle and Mother's admission of methamphetamine use; home had fire damage and prior domestic-violence incidents.
- CCDJFS obtained emergency temporary custody (Oct. 2019); A.D. and M.D. were adjudicated neglected and placed in temporary custody; CCDJFS moved for permanent custody of the twins on Apr. 1, 2021.
- T.M.-E. was adjudicated neglected and placed in temporary custody, but his original case was later dismissed on procedural grounds; CCDJFS filed a dependency complaint requesting permanent custody of T.M.-E. on May 28, 2021 (new case no. 2021 JC 05409).
- A consolidated permanent-custody hearing was held July 23, 2021; the magistrate recommended permanent custody of all three children to CCDJFS; Mother did not file objections to the magistrate's decisions.
- The juvenile court adopted the magistrate's recommendations and granted CCDJFS permanent custody of all three children; on appeal the appellate court affirmed the orders for A.D. and M.D. but reversed and remanded as to T.M.-E. because the trial court applied the wrong statutory standard.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | CCDJFS' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether granting permanent custody of A.D. and M.D. was supported by clear and convincing evidence | Mother: evidence insufficient to terminate; she has housing, work, and support and can address behavioral health | CCDJFS: Mother lacked stability, was essentially homeless, continued substance use, failed case-plan goals | Affirmed — court found R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) correctly applied; findings (instability, substance use, failed goals) supported custody grant; no plain error given Mother failed to object |
| Whether granting permanent custody of T.M.-E. was lawful | Mother: same contention — insufficient evidence to permanently sever parental rights | CCDJFS: child in agency custody and permanent custody appropriate under its dependency complaint | Reversed and remanded — court applied R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) in error; correct statute is R.C. 2151.353(A)(4); remand to apply R.C. 2151.353(A)(4) and R.C. 2151.414(E) factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (plain-error review is tightly limited in civil cases; extraordinary circumstances required)
- Schade v. Carnegie Body Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 207 (plain error involves obvious, prejudicial errors that affect public confidence in judicial proceedings)
- Etter v. Braden, 134 Ohio App.3d 484 (failure to object to magistrate's decision waives issues on appeal)