In Re B.C.
141 Ohio St. 3d 55
| Ohio | 2014Background
- Child B.C. was removed from mother (appellant) in Oct 2011; FCSCC obtained temporary custody and later moved for permanent custody in Oct 2012.
- A case plan initially sought reunification but changed to adoption after continued neglect and lack of compliance by mother.
- Mother appeared in December 2012, was found to have knowingly and voluntarily surrendered parental rights, and the juvenile court awarded permanent custody to FCSCC in Feb 2013.
- Child was adopted by foster family in Aug 2013; mother filed a notice of appeal and a motion for leave to file a delayed appeal, filed after the 30-day App.R. 4(A) period.
- The Second District dismissed the untimely appeal but certified a conflict with a Fifth District case about whether App.R. 5(A) delayed-appeal provisions extend to parental-termination cases. The Ohio Supreme Court accepted and resolved the certified question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process requires permitting a parent a delayed appeal (akin to App.R. 5(A)) from an order terminating parental rights | Mother: termination is a fundamental liberty-depriving action; due process requires a delayed-appeal remedy when counsel was ineffective and mother misunderstood consequences | State/FCSCC: no rule or statute authorizes delayed appeals in permanent-custody cases; existing statutory procedures and timely appeals suffice; delayed appeals would harm child permanency | No — due process does not require allowing a delayed appeal after termination of parental rights |
Key Cases Cited
- M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996) (parental rights are protected associational liberty interests under the Fourteenth Amendment)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (three-factor test for procedural due process: private interest, risk of erroneous deprivation, governmental interest)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (termination proceedings must be fundamentally fair; heightened burden of proof considerations)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental interest in care, custody, and control of children is a fundamental liberty interest)
- Lehman v. Lycoming Cty. Children’s Servs. Agency, 458 U.S. 502 (1982) (importance of finality and avoidance of prolonged uncertainty in child-placement decisions)
- In re A.B., 110 Ohio St.3d 230 (2006) (Ohio’s expedited appeal process promotes permanency in juvenile/adoption contexts)
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (1997) (termination is the family-law equivalent of the death penalty; parents must receive full procedural protections)
- In re Perales, 52 Ohio St.2d 89 (1977) (suitable parents have paramount custody rights)