In re A.J.
2014 Ohio 5046
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- FCCS filed a 2009 complaint alleging S.D.J. and S.J.J. were neglected and dependent, and sought temporary custody with GAL appointments for the children and appellant.
- Adjudicatory hearings in 2010 found S.J.J. and S.D.J. dependent and wards of the court; A.J. likewise found dependent and ward; FCCS was granted continuing temporary custody in each case.
- Guardians ad litem and counsel were appointed for each child, including appellant, during the pendency of the cases.
- Over 2011–2013 FCCS moved for permanent custody; guardian reports recommended reunification was unlikely and permanent custody to FCCS for some children, with legal custody to nonparents for others.
- On March 10, 2014, the parties signed four agreed entries granting legal custody to nonparents: S.D.J. and S.J.J. to Regina Preston; A.J. to Samella McDonald; A.D.J. to Rebecca Pearson; repeatedly signed with counsel and GAL present.
- The trial court adopted the agreed entries on March 10, 2014 and filed the judgments on March 13, 2014; appellant mother was not present for signing but was represented by counsel and a GAL throughout.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process was violated by granting legal custody without valid consent | Mother argues Juv.R. 29 colloquy required to ensure knowing, intelligent consent. | Dispositional proceedings, presence of counsel and GAL shows voluntary, informed consent; Juv.R. 29 not applicable to dispositional hearings. | No due-process violation; consent deemed voluntary and intelligent; affirmed. |
| Whether awarding legal custody to nonparents was in the children's best interest | Mother contends best-interest standard was not properly ascertained for each child. | Court inquiries at hearing, explicit best-interest recitals in the entries, and guardian ad litem reports support the decision. | Best interests were ascertained; court did not abuse discretion; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.D., 2013-Ohio-3214 (10th Dist. 2013) (legal custody is a dispositional option; not permanent custody; allows future modification)
- In re Mullen, 2011-Ohio-3361 (Ohio Sup. Ct., 2011) (abuse of discretion standard in custody matters)
- In re C.R., 2006-Ohio-1191 (Supreme Court of Ohio, 2006) (role of court in custody determinations following adjudication)
- In re C.M., 2008-Ohio-2977 (10th Dist. 2008) (distinguishes adjudicatory vs. dispositional hearings; Juv.R. 29 applicability)
- In re Hockstok, 2002-Ohio-7208 (Supreme Court of Ohio, 2002) (due-process protections in custody proceedings upon parent rights)
- Masitto v. Masitto, 1986-Ohio St.3d 63 (Supreme Court of Ohio, 1986) (waiver of custody rights requires voluntary relinquishment; evidence-based)