In re B.B.
74 N.E.3d 904
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Mother and Father are parents of B.B., born Nov. 1, 2013. Father previously severely abused an older half‑sibling (J.C.) in 2005, earning convictions and a seven‑year prison sentence for felonious assault and child endangering.
- After Father’s release, Mother resumed a relationship with him; Mother left infant B.B. in Father’s care while she worked. B.B. was hospitalized twice in early 2014 with symptoms suggesting possible physical abuse.
- Lorain County Children Services (LCCS) opened an investigation, parents repeatedly minimized Father’s prior abuse, and Father denied responsibility or any anger problem and refused recommended counseling/anger‑management services.
- LCCS filed a dependency complaint (Apr. 4, 2014). The juvenile magistrate adjudicated B.B. dependent and placed him under LCCS protective supervision (July 11, 2014); Father was barred from unsupervised contact.
- Mother and Father continued to resist the case plan; Mother later moved with B.B. into Grandmother’s home and Grandmother supervised visits. LCCS moved to place B.B. in Grandmother’s legal custody; the trial court granted legal custody to Grandmother.
- Mother appealed, raising (1) that the dependency adjudication was against the manifest weight of the evidence and procedurally defective; and (2) that the trial court erred in awarding legal custody to Grandmother rather than returning B.B. to Mother.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | LCCS/Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / finality of appeal from July 2014 adjudication | Mother argued the July 2014 adjudication wasn’t final/appealable until the later final custody order, so her later appeal was timely | Respondent argued the July 2014 adjudication and protective‑supervision disposition was a final, appealable order and the appeal from it was untimely | Court: Mother’s appeal from the July 2014 adjudication was untimely; the court lacks jurisdiction to review assignments attacking that adjudication |
| Alleged procedural defect in magistrate’s July 11, 2014 decision (Civ.R. 53(D) language) | Mother claimed the magistrate’s decision was facially defective and required de novo review | Respondent maintained any challenge to the magistrate’s order was untimely and jurisdictionally barred for late appeal | Court: Did not reach merits due to lack of jurisdiction over the untimely challenge to the adjudication |
| Legal custody: whether trial court erred by awarding legal custody to Grandmother rather than Mother | Mother argued custody award was against the manifest weight, LCCS failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify, and the child’s best interests favored return to her | Respondent argued legal custody decision must be based on child’s best interest; parents’ ongoing minimization of Father’s dangerousness and refusal to comply with case plan supported placement with Grandmother | Court: Affirmed grant of legal custody to Grandmother — Mother failed to explain why return to her served B.B.’s best interest; LCCS had provided a reunification plan and parents did not comply |
Key Cases Cited
- Transamerica Ins. Co. v. Nolan, 72 Ohio St.3d 320 (1995) (untimely notice of appeal does not invoke appellate jurisdiction)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (1990) (adjudication and removal affect substantial parental rights and are appealable)
- In re H.F., 120 Ohio St.3d 499 (2008) (adjudication of abuse/neglect/dependency followed by temporary disposition affects substantial rights and is appealable)
- In re Adams, 115 Ohio St.3d 86 (2007) (finality and appealability principles in juvenile adjudications)