2019 Ohio 3791
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Mother (M.W.) gave birth to E.C. in April 2015; father (D.C., Sr.) acknowledged paternity. Mother had untreated mental-health issues, unstable housing, and a criminal history; FCCS obtained temporary custody of E.C. in 2016.
- Mother gave birth to D.C., Jr. in November 2016 while father was incarcerated; FCCS obtained temporary custody of D.C., Jr.; the trial court adjudicated both children dependent and placed them in FCCS temporary custody (February 21, 2017 dispositional order).
- FCCS moved for permanent custody on February 7, 2018, alleging the children had been in agency custody for at least 12 of the prior 22 months and pointing to parents’ instability and father’s incarceration/domestic-violence history.
- At the September 13, 2018 permanent-custody hearing, the caseworker and guardian ad litem recommended granting permanent custody to FCCS; both parents testified from jail.
- The juvenile court granted FCCS permanent custody on November 1, 2018 under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), finding the 12-of-22-months rule satisfied and that permanent custody was in the children’s best interests.
- Mother and father appealed: mother argued lack of jurisdiction/adjudication defects and that relatives (paternal grandmother) could provide placement; father argued the court erred by not first declaring him unfit. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction / adequacy of adjudicatory hearing for D.C., Jr. | Mother: trial court lacked jurisdiction / failed to comply with Juv.R. 29 during adjudication, so permanent custody order invalid. | FCCS: adjudication and disposition became a final, appealable order on Feb. 21, 2017; mother failed to appeal timely, so appellate review is barred. | Court: mother did not timely appeal the Feb. 21, 2017 adjudication/disposition; appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review those claims. |
| Relative placement (paternal grandmother) as legally secure alternative | Mother: excluding grandmother because baby furniture went missing was insufficient; grandmother could provide placement. | FCCS: grandmother never filed for legal custody and was not proposed as a legal custodian in pleadings; thus she could not be granted legal custody. | Court: trial court properly rejected grandmother as a legally secure permanent placement because she did not move for legal custody; no error in best-interest analysis. |
| Application of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) (12-of-22 months) and best-interest finding | Mother: a legally secure placement might be available without granting agency permanent custody. | FCCS: children were in agency custody for the requisite period; permanency required for children’s best interests. | Court: 12-of-22 requirement met; trial court permissibly found permanent custody was in the children’s best interests. |
| Requirement to find parental unfitness before terminating rights | Father: court erred by not expressly declaring him an unfit parent before awarding permanent custody. | FCCS: R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) does not require an explicit unfitness finding; dependency adjudication and 12/22 finding implicitly establish parental unsuitability. | Court: no statutory requirement for explicit unfitness finding; dependency adjudication and 12-of-22 implicit findings suffice; father’s assignment overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re H.F., 120 Ohio St.3d 499 (2008) (finality of adjudication + disposition creates appealable order; timeliness of appeal jurisdictional)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (1990) (adjudication + disposition constitute final, appealable order)
- State ex rel. Pendell v. Adams Cty. Bd. of Elections, 40 Ohio St.3d 58 (1988) (failure to timely appeal deprives reviewing court of jurisdiction)
- In re C.R., 108 Ohio St.3d 369 (2006) (juvenile adjudication of abuse/neglect/dependency implicitly involves parental unsuitability)
- In re B.C., 141 Ohio St.3d 55 (2014) (child’s welfare is controlling principle over parental rights)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (1979) (parental rights are not absolute; child welfare is paramount)