In re B.G.S.
101 N.E.3d 1267
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Child B.G.S. was born July 2016; father Zachary Summers learned of the birth after the case was disposed.
- Marion County Children Services filed for emergency custody and a dependency complaint in August 2016; magistrate and trial court adjudicated the child dependent and granted Agency custody.
- Agency moved for permanent custody in November 2016; mother Sappington executed a voluntary permanent surrender and the court granted permanent custody to the Agency in December 2016.
- Service attempts on Summers were by posting and used the child’s initials "B.G.S."; postings did not include the mother’s name.
- In January 2017 Summers filed a Motion to Provide Documents and a Civ.R. 60(B) Motion for Relief from Judgment claiming lack of notice and fraud; the trial court denied relief in July 2017.
- Summers appealed; the appellate court reversed, finding the notices were defective and deprived the court of jurisdiction over Summers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Summers) | Defendant's Argument (Agency) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Summers received constitutionally adequate notice of dependency and permanent custody proceedings | He was unaware of the birth and was not properly served; postings using initials were not reasonably calculated to notify him | Agency relied on posting to notify unknown father and contends service was sufficient | Notices were defective: postings used initials (B.G.S. = "Baby Girl Sappington") and omitted the mother’s name; service did not comply with Juv.R. requirements and local rule, so Summers lacked adequate notice |
| Whether the lack of notice deprived the juvenile court of personal jurisdiction over Summers | Lack of notice voided proceedings as to him and supports vacatur | Agency maintained service efforts were proper | Where personal-jurisdiction is challenged for lack of notice, courts treat the motion as a common-law vacatur and review de novo; here jurisdictional defect existed due to improper notice |
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B) standards barred relief | Relief sought under Civ.R. 60(B) (fraud, defective service) and requested vacatur | Agency opposed the motion | Court did not need Civ.R. 60(B) framework because Summers challenged jurisdiction; relief was warranted on jurisdictional grounds and judgment reversed |
| Relief/remedy | Vacate permanent-custody judgment and permit further proceedings with proper notice | Uphold permanent custody | Appellate court reversed trial-court judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with proper notice requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Murray v. Cleveland, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (Ohio 1990) (parents have fundamental liberty interest in care and custody of child)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (parental rights are a fundamental liberty interest)
- Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1923) (parental liberty in child-rearing)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parents’ fundamental interest requires procedural protections)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (standards for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- In re Thompkins, 115 Ohio St.3d 409 (Ohio 2007) (heightened procedural protections required in permanent custody proceedings)