In re D.M.
2016 Ohio 1450
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- K.C. (mother) is the parent of D.M., born 2010; Hocking County Children Services (SCOJFS) filed a dependency complaint after D.M. was found submerged in his father A.M. II’s vehicle following an August 2013 crash. D.M. was adjudicated dependent and placed in temporary custody of SCOJFS in late 2013.
- K.C. was in treatment at the time of the incident, later left the area, and had a period of extended noncontact with D.M.; SCOJFS filed for permanent custody on February 5, 2015.
- K.C. resumed supervised weekly visits in April 2015 and engaged in services after the permanent-custody motion was filed; SCOJFS and the GAL nevertheless recommended granting permanent custody to the agency.
- At the August 21, 2015 hearing SCOJFS presented testimony regarding parental substance abuse, lack of contact, and continuing relationship between K.C. and A.M. II; the GAL recommended permanent custody. The court granted SCOJFS permanent custody on September 17, 2015.
- K.C.’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious issues but suggested review of possible ineffective-assistance claims; the Fourth District independently reviewed the record and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (SCOJFS) | Defendant's Argument (K.C.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly found abandonment under R.C. 2151.011(C) / R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(b) | K.C. failed to visit or maintain contact for more than 90 days, supporting abandonment and statutory basis for permanent custody | K.C. offered explanations for gaps but could not show the court's abandonment finding was unsupported | Court held abandonment was supported by competent, credible evidence and justified permanent-custody basis |
| Whether reasonable-efforts findings were required at permanent-custody hearing | SCOJFS argued prior reasonable-efforts finding existed and the agency satisfied requirements | K.C. implicitly argued procedural errors or lack of efforts could undermine custody award | Court found reasonable-efforts statute does not apply at permanent-custody hearing here; any technical error was harmless because abandonment excused further efforts findings |
| Whether the court’s best-interest analysis supported permanent custody | SCOJFS: factors (child’s relationships, custodial history, need for legally secure placement, GAL recommendation) favored agency placement | K.C. argued improved participation and resumed visits showed ability to parent and that award was against manifest weight | Court held trial court properly considered R.C. 2151.414(D) factors and evidence supported best-interest finding by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether K.C. was denied effective assistance of counsel (including failure to seek appointment of independent counsel for the child) | SCOJFS/record: no obvious defense counsel errors; child had GAL and was immature so independent counsel unnecessary | K.C. (raised via Anders counsel) suggested possible ineffective assistance but no specific deficiency identified; contends child’s interests might have required counsel | Court held no deficient performance proven; trial court reasonably declined to appoint independent counsel because child was immature and did not express wishes inconsistent with GAL; no meritorious ineffective-assistance claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (requires counsel seeking to withdraw to identify any arguable appeal issues and allows court to independently review the record)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (parental rights are fundamental but may be terminated when a child's best interest requires it)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (explains Ohio manifest-weight standard and reviewing court deference to factfinder credibility determinations)
- In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (2008) (permanent custody determinations must be supported by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Williams, 101 Ohio St.3d 398 (2004) (child is entitled to independent counsel in termination proceedings only in certain circumstances; courts must decide case-by-case)