In re D.B.
2017 Ohio 5792
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Three consolidated appeals from Hamilton County Juvenile Court: trial court terminated Mother’s and Father’s parental rights, denied Grandmother’s custody petition, and awarded permanent custody of D.B., B.B., and J.B. to HCJFS.
- Children had been in HCJFS temporary custody for 12+ of a consecutive 22-month period.
- Mother has a long history of opioid addiction, deceptive noncompliance with treatment, continued association with people involved in drugs, and only supervised visits; she also violated court orders by having the children in her home (one child was found wandering alone).
- Father has an extensive criminal record and was incarcerated for most of the time the children were in custody; he had little to no contact with the children.
- Grandmother previously had the children placed with her but left them in Mother’s care (or with an unapproved babysitter) contrary to court orders; the trial court found Grandmother’s testimony about those events not credible.
- Trial court found no suitable alternative placement (no third-party custodian had a pending motion) and that permanent custody to HCJFS was in the children’s best interests; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellants' Argument | HCJFS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody award was supported by sufficient/weight of evidence | Mother/Father/Grandmother: evidence favored relatives; court erred/abused discretion in granting permanent custody to HCJFS | Permanent custody supported by clear-and-convincing evidence (children’s need for legally secure placement; parents’ incapacity) | Affirmed — best-interest finding supported; no manifest miscarriage of justice |
| Whether Grandmother (or relative C.B.) should have been awarded legal custody instead of terminating parental rights | Grandmother/Custodial relatives: trial court should have awarded custody to Grandmother or C.B. | Grandmother’s credibility problems and violations of court orders; C.B. did not file for custody so court had no option to place children there | Affirmed — Grandmother’s petition denied; C.B. ineligible because she did not seek custody |
| Whether Mother was denied due process by being prevented from cross-examining the magistrate (magistrate’s comment on testimony) | Mother/Grandmother: magistrate made adverse comment and should have been subject to cross-examination | The magistrate’s remark was an evaluative credibility comment by the factfinder, not testimonial evidence; no right to cross-examine the magistrate | Affirmed — no due process violation or plain error |
| Whether case should be remanded to extend temporary custody to allow Father to complete services | Father: remand to extend temporary custody so he can complete services and seek reunification | Father was incarcerated and had long criminal history; prolonged placement and lack of progress made permanent custody appropriate | Affirmed — court properly found permanent custody necessary for legally secure placement |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Perales, 52 Ohio St.2d 89, 369 N.E.2d 1047 (Ohio 1977) (parents have a paramount but not absolute right to custody)
- In re D.A., 113 Ohio St.3d 88, 862 N.E.2d 829 (Ohio 2007) (child’s best interest controls in custody determinations)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 972 N.E.2d 517 (Ohio 2012) (standard for reviewing sufficiency and weight of the evidence)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212 (Ohio 1967) (credibility determinations are for the trier of fact)
- Ohio Pyro, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, 115 Ohio St.3d 375, 875 N.E.2d 550 (Ohio 2007) (standing requirements; third parties cannot raise rights not theirs)