In re A.L.A.
2016 Ohio 5887
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Child A.L.A. adjudicated dependent in February 2011; Trumbull County Children Services moved for permanent custody in September 2012.
- Permanent custody trial occurred October 22 & 29, 2012; magistrate granted permanent custody and terminated Daniel Mate’s parental rights; juvenile court approved on December 5, 2012.
- Child was adopted in December 2015 (probate court, Mahoning County), and the juvenile court closed its review in January 2016.
- On January 28, 2016, Mate filed a Civ.R. 60(B) Motion to Vacate the termination order, alleging he was never served and had no opportunity to be heard; he attached an affidavit asserting lack of notice.
- Juvenile court denied the Motion without an evidentiary hearing, finding service had been completed and noting the adoption had extinguished the court’s jurisdiction over the child.
- Mate appealed, arguing the court should have held an evidentiary hearing to test the contested service of process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on Mate’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion challenging service of process | Mate: trial court must hold a hearing to allow proof (e.g., subpoena process server) to determine whether service was legally accomplished | Children Services / juvenile court: motion was untimely and facially deficient; record shows service and prior notice; further, jurisdiction ended when the child was adopted | Court: No hearing required — motion untimely (filed >3 years after judgment) and court lacked jurisdiction after adoption; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (establishes the three-prong Civ.R. 60(B) test)
- Coulson v. Coulson, 5 Ohio St.3d 12 (motions alleging operative facts warranting relief should ordinarily receive an evidentiary hearing)
- State ex rel. Richard v. Seidner, 76 Ohio St.3d 149 (no hearing required when motion and materials do not allege operative facts warranting relief)
- Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75 (Civ.R. 60(B) rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Strack v. Pelton, 70 Ohio St.3d 172 (Civ.R. 60(B) requirements are conjunctive)
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (recognizing the gravity of terminating parental rights; procedural protections are critical but do not permit collateral attack years later after adoption)