2023 Ohio 191
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Infant F.T. born January 2021 tested positive for cocaine; mother admitted prenatal drug use and died in a car accident days later. Agency obtained emergency/temporary custody shortly after birth.
- Agency initially served the "unknown father" by posting/mail; genetic testing later identified W.L. as father. W.L. was added to the case, entered an appearance, and obtained counsel.
- W.L. stipulated to the dependency adjudication (June 2021) and participated in services/visits but missed periods of contact, had unstable housing, and continued positive drug screens.
- Agency moved for permanent custody (filed Feb. 28, 2022); hearing held April 25, 2022. Evidence showed partial case-plan compliance (parenting class) but noncompliance with AOD treatment, ongoing positive tests, housing instability, and inconsistent contact. Foster parents were bonded and planned to adopt.
- Juvenile court found reasonable efforts had been made, concluded placement with parents was not appropriate within a reasonable time, awarded permanent custody to the agency; W.L. appealed raising five assignments of error. Appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Appellee/Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Temporary custody void for insufficient service | Agency failed to exercise reasonable diligence to locate/serve W.L.; service by publication/mail was inadequate and hearing date notice was incorrect | W.L. entered appearance, counsel, stipulated, never objected to service; waiver by submission to court’s jurisdiction | Overruled — service objection waived by participation; judgment not void |
| 2) Permanent custody void for insufficient service | Agency again served by publication; insufficient diligence to locate W.L. before permanent-custody motion | W.L. attended hearings and raised no service objection; personal jurisdiction effectively submitted to | Overruled — same waiver/submission rationale |
| 3) Ineffective assistance for failing to object to service | Trial counsel erred by not objecting to alleged defective service, causing loss of parental rights | Even if counsel erred, no prejudice shown; objection likely would have preserved temporary custody or led to re-service; speculative that outcome would differ | Overruled — no demonstrable prejudice under Strickland standard |
| 4) Permanent-custody decision against manifest weight | W.L. substantially complied with case plan (parenting class, housing, employment, visits) and had long-term counseling engagement | Record shows noncompliance with major case-plan elements (AOD treatment), recent positive drug tests, unstable housing, inconsistent contact; strong foster bond; best-interest factors favor agency | Overruled — trial court’s findings supported by clear-and-convincing evidence; not an exceptional miscarriage of justice |
| 5) Agency failed to use reasonable efforts to place child with W.L. | Agency did not adequately attempt to contact W.L. early and did not make reasonable reunification efforts | Court had previously made multiple reasonable-efforts findings during the case; statute’s reasonable-efforts requirement applies at earlier hearings and findings existed | Overruled — record shows reasonable-efforts findings; agency met burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parents’ interest in child-rearing is a fundamental liberty interest)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (heightened procedural protections before terminating parental rights)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (notice reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties is required by due process)
- In re B.C., 141 Ohio St.3d 55 (2014) (reiterating parental custody as paramount and procedural protections in dependency cases)
- In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (2007) (permanent-custody best-interest framework and interplay with reasonable-efforts findings)
- In re Frinzl, 152 Ohio St. 164 (1949) (juvenile court cannot change temporary commitment to permanent without proper service)
- State ex rel. Ballard v. O’Donnell, 50 Ohio St.3d 182 (1990) (judgment without proper service is void)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for manifest-weight review and evaluating sufficiency/credibility)
- In re Thompkins, 115 Ohio St.3d 409 (2007) (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard)