2020 Ohio 2762
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- P.G.’s parental rights to daughter A.G. were terminated in 2014 and permanent custody was awarded to Lucas County Children’s Services (LCCS).
- On April 2, 2019 P.G. filed a third‑party complaint seeking visitation/companionship or, alternatively, custody; she later amended the complaint (June 20, 2019) to add LCCS and to allege that A.G. was neglected and dependent.
- The magistrate granted C.A.’s (the child’s custodian) motion to dismiss for lack of standing, relying on In re McBride; the juvenile court adopted that decision and dismissed the complaint.
- P.G. argued she had statutory standing under R.C. 2151.27(A)(1) and Juv.R. 10(A) because “any person” may file a complaint alleging neglect or dependency; defendants argued statutory bars (R.C. 2151.414 and 2151.353) precluded a parent who had lost parental rights from seeking custody or visitation.
- The appellate court held that (1) P.G. lacks standing to seek visitation/companionship or custody because those are residual parental rights terminated by the permanent custody order, but (2) a parent whose rights were terminated may nonetheless have standing to file a complaint alleging dependency or neglect under R.C. 2151.27(A)(1)/Juv.R. 10(A).
- The court reversed the dismissal to the extent the amended complaint alleged dependency/neglect and remanded for the juvenile court to consider the neglect/dependency allegations; it affirmed dismissal as to visitation/custody claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (P.G.) | Defendant's Argument (C.A./LCCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a parent whose parental rights were terminated may file a complaint alleging dependency/neglect under R.C. 2151.27(A)(1)/Juv.R. 10(A) | P.G.: "Any person" may file such a complaint; termination should not preclude filing to protect the child | C.A./LCCS: Termination of parental rights and R.C. 2151.414/2151.353 bar a former parent from initiating proceedings challenging disposition | Held: A parent whose rights were terminated may have standing to file a complaint alleging dependency/neglect under R.C. 2151.27(A)(1)/Juv.R.10(A); dismissal of the amended neglect complaint was erroneous |
| Whether P.G. has standing to seek visitation/companionship or custody after termination of parental rights | P.G.: She may seek visitation or custody (and alleged harms to the child) | C.A./LCCS: Residual parental rights were terminated; statutes bar parents from seeking custody/visitation as nonparents | Held: P.G. lacks standing to seek visitation/companionship or custody because those are residual parental rights terminated by the permanent custody order |
| Whether the magistrate/trial court properly addressed the amended complaint and conducted independent review | P.G.: Trial court failed to independently review and ignored amended neglect allegations | C.A./LCCS: (No appellate brief filed) | Held: Appellate court found the magistrate failed to address the amended neglect allegations; because the amended complaint alleges neglect, dismissal for lack of standing was improper as to that claim (trial‑court independent‑review claim rendered moot by disposition) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re McBride, 110 Ohio St.3d 19 (2006) (Ohio Sup. Ct. holding a parent who lost permanent custody does not have standing as a nonparent to file a petition for custody)
- Moore v. Middletown, 133 Ohio St.3d 55 (2012) (standing is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- In re Reese, 4 Ohio App.3d 59 (1982) (an R.C. 2151.27 action primarily determines whether a child is receiving proper parental care; custody selection is ancillary)
- Krause v. State, 31 Ohio St.2d 132 (1972) (definition of "substantive" rights in context of court procedural rules)