2021 Ohio 429
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Mother was involuntarily hospitalized for psychiatric care after a January 2018 incident; diagnoses included "unspecified psychosis" and later evaluations indicating delusional/paranoid symptoms.
- HCJFS obtained emergency custody of D.G. (Mother’s only child); D.G. was adjudicated dependent and remained in agency temporary custody for over 21 consecutive months.
- Mother completed substantial therapy and maintained regular visitation but refused psychotropic medication and consistently denied having a mental-health disorder.
- D.G. was placed with maternal grandparents in South Carolina; HCJFS moved to modify temporary custody to permanent custody in January 2020.
- Magistrate granted permanent custody to HCJFS; the juvenile court adopted the magistrate’s decision. Mother appealed on sufficiency/manifest-weight grounds; Mother’s GAL separately argued the trial court exceeded the 90‑day dispositional deadline under R.C. 2151.35(B)(1).
- The record contains an on‑the‑record, pre‑deadline entry in which "all parties waive[d] any objection to the completion of the adjudication and/or disposition within 90 days," which the court treated as an express waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear-and-convincing evidence supported awarding permanent custody (sufficiency and manifest weight) | Mother: evidence insufficient and judgment against manifest weight because she is bonded with D.G., engaged in services, and professionals disputed diagnosis | HCJFS: record shows persistent delusional/paranoid symptoms, Mother did not remedy conditions, D.G.’s need for a legally secure placement favors permanent custody | Affirmed. Trial court’s best-interest analysis under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a)–(d) supported by competent, credible evidence; not a manifest miscarriage of justice. |
| Whether an on-the-record, express waiver by all parties can prevent mandatory dismissal under R.C. 2151.35(B)(1) after In re K.M., and whether In re K.M. applies retroactively | Mother’s GAL: disposition exceeded 90 days and In re K.M. requires dismissal without prejudice | HCJFS/D.G.’s GAL: In re K.M. applies retroactively, but parties may expressly waive the 90‑day deadline on the record; waiver avoids dismissal | Held: In re K.M. applies retroactively, but an express, on‑the‑record waiver by all parties of the 90‑day dispositional deadline prevents the mandatory dismissal required for implicit (or non‑waived) violations. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.M., 159 Ohio St.3d 544, 2020-Ohio-995, 152 N.E.3d 245 (Ohio 2020) (holding R.C. 2151.35(B)(1)’s 90‑day dispositional deadline is mandatory and implicit waivers are not permitted)
- DiCenzo v. A-Best Prods. Co., Inc., 120 Ohio St.3d 149, 2008-Ohio-5327, 897 N.E.2d 132 (Ohio 2008) (sets factors for prospectivity/retroactivity of judicial decisions)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, 972 N.E.2d 517 (Ohio 2012) (standard for sufficiency review and appellate review of civil findings of fact)
- State v. Ramey, 132 Ohio St.3d 309, 2012-Ohio-2904, 971 N.E.2d 937 (Ohio 2012) (discussing mandatory speedy‑trial time limits)
- State v. Adams, 43 Ohio St.3d 67, 538 N.E.2d 1025 (Ohio) (recognizing a defendant may knowingly and voluntarily waive statutory speedy‑trial rights)
- In re R.K., 152 Ohio St.3d 316, 2018-Ohio-23, 95 N.E.3d 394 (Ohio 2018) (characterizing parental-termination proceedings as akin to the death penalty for family relationships)