In re B.C.
2014 Ohio 2748
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Infant B.C. was removed at birth; Summit County Children Services (CSB) obtained temporary custody and later sought legal custody for the maternal aunt (Aunt).
- Magistrate granted legal custody to Aunt on Aug. 30, 2011; the trial court adopted that decision and later held a separate hearing (May 15, 2013) resolving visitation and child support. Parents appealed on June 14, 2013.
- Mother had positive interactions on supervised visits but had a hair test indicating cocaine use and did not engage in outpatient treatment; Aunt’s home was stable and housed B.C. and her sibling together.
- Father did not object to the magistrate’s legal-custody decision and thus forfeited most challenges on appeal; Mother objected but did not supplement her objections with a transcript-based brief.
- The court concluded legal custody to Aunt was in the child’s best interest and denied an extension of temporary custody; however, the court failed to include mandatory R.C. 3119.22 findings when deviating from child-support guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the parents’ challenges to the legal-custody order are barred by res judicata/timeliness | Parents: appeal from May 15, 2013 (post-resolution of residual issues) was timely under App.R. 4(B)(5) | CSB: parents should have appealed the Aug. 30, 2011 custody order within 30 days; arguments now barred | Held: The custody order was a partial final order because the court reserved visitation/support; parents could timely appeal after the May 15, 2013 order, so arguments not barred |
| Whether granting legal custody to Aunt (and denying a 6-month extension) was an abuse of discretion | Parents: custody should remain with parents or temporary custody extended to allow reunification | CSB/Aunt: placement with Aunt served child’s best interest; stability, bonding, appropriate home | Held: No abuse of discretion; legal custody to Aunt was in child’s best interest and an extension was not required |
| Whether the court had to issue written "reasonable efforts" findings regarding reunification | Father: court failed to issue written reasonable-efforts findings | CSB: reunification efforts not required for Father due to prior involuntary termination as to sibling (R.C. exception) | Held: No reversible error as to Father—the court correctly found reunification efforts were not required; Father lacks standing to complain about Mother’s findings |
| Whether the child-support order complied with R.C. 3119.22 when deviating from guidelines | Parents: deviation calculations and supporting findings are defective/absent | CSB/Trial court: relied on magistrate’s recommendation and worksheet attached | Held: Reversible error—the May 15, 2013 order did not state the guideline amount and contain the required determination and findings supporting the deviation; remanded for proper findings |
| Whether parents received ineffective assistance of counsel for not objecting/appealing | Parents: counsel failed to object to custody decision, failed to timely appeal, and failed to object to child-support decision | State: many failures either non-prejudicial or forfeited; some claims premature pending remand on support findings | Held: Claims of ineffective assistance regarding custody appeals or supplemental briefs lacked demonstrated prejudice; review of counsel’s failure to object on child-support is premature pending remand |
Key Cases Cited
- In re H.F., 120 Ohio St.3d 499 (Ohio 2008) (App.R. 4(B)(5) and final/partial orders in juvenile cases)
- In re C.B., 129 Ohio St.3d 231 (Ohio 2011) (parents have substantial custody rights)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (Ohio 1990) (finality of juvenile adjudication and custody orders)
- Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (Ohio 1997) (abuse-of-discretion standard for custody decisions)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Marker v. Grim, 65 Ohio St.3d 139 (Ohio 1992) (requirement that child-support worksheet be completed and part of the record)