2021 Ohio 3992
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- C.H. (b. 9/13/2016) was removed from his paternal grandmother’s home in July 2019 after CSB received reports of methamphetamine use, domestic violence, a cluttered home, and failures to obtain services for C.H., who has Down syndrome.
- Mother and Father had been living with Grandmother but moved out; Mother’s residence was uncertain and she described herself as homeless/“in between housing.”
- CSB filed complaints and sought temporary custody; Grandmother stipulated and the children were placed in CSB custody; early in the case Mother had minimal recorded contact with the caseworker and missed multiple hearings.
- CSB served Mother by publication (posting) under Civ.R. 4.4(A)(2) supported by an affidavit stating Mother’s residence was unknown, but the affidavit failed to list Mother’s last known address (Grandmother’s), and the clerk’s certificate did not state that mailing to a last known address occurred.
- The juvenile court awarded permanent custody to CSB, finding CSB had used reasonable efforts and that return to the parents was not appropriate; Mother appealed, arguing defective service and due process violations.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding service by publication was incomplete because CSB did not include Mother’s last known address in its affidavit as required by Civ.R. 4.4(A)(2), thereby denying Mother constitutionally adequate notice; the court declined to reach Mother’s request for a six‑month extension as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | CSB’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of service of process / notice under Civ.R. 4.4(A)(2) and due process | Service was defective because CSB failed to mail the complaint to Mother’s last known address (Grandmother’s) and thus deprived Mother of notice and opportunity to be heard | CSB contends Mother’s residence was unknown despite database checks and posting was proper; the Ivanhoe address was the only searchable address | Reversed: affidavit omitted Mother’s last known address as required by Civ.R. 4.4(A)(2); mailing to last known address was not shown; service was incomplete and violated due process |
| Sufficiency of CSB’s reasonable‑efforts finding | Mother contends any finding of reasonable efforts is illusory because the agency failed to investigate and update her address and so deprived her of meaningful participation | CSB argues it made reasonable efforts (database checks, attempted contacts, posting) to locate Mother | Appellate court sustained Mother’s challenge insofar as defective service undermined the due‑process predicate for terminating parental rights; because service failed, the reasonable‑efforts finding could not stand on this record |
| Denial of six‑month extension to engage in services | Mother asked for a six‑month extension to become engaged and complete services | CSB and trial court relied on Mother’s prior nonparticipation and court discretion to deny extension | Moot on appeal — not decided by the appellate court after reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parents have a fundamental liberty interest in raising their children)
- Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (notice must be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of proceedings)
- In re Thompkins, 115 Ohio St.3d 409 (2007) (due process in juvenile proceedings requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
- In re D.A., 113 Ohio St.3d 88 (2007) (procedural protections required before terminating parental rights)
- In re Wilson, 21 Ohio App.3d 36 (6th Dist. 1984) (purpose of listing last known address when serving by posting and mail)
- In re Mullenax, 108 Ohio App.3d 271 (9th Dist. 1996) (juvenile court lacks jurisdiction where party did not receive notice of proceedings)