In re I.M.
2012 Ohio 3847
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- I.M., 13, was adjudicated delinquent for gross sexual imposition involving her nine-year-old half-sister and placed on probation with DYS custody under court care while her father retained legal custody.
- I.M. violated probation by failing to engage in sex offender therapy; court committed her to DYS for seven days and continued probation.
- In May 2011, I.M. admitted another probation violation and was committed to DYS for an indefinite term with a minimum of six months.
- I.M. was released to DYS supervision (parole) after the minimum term; in Jan 2012 she faced new alleged misconduct at community service locations.
- Feb 2012 parole violation hearing: I.M. admitted the violation after waiving counsel; the court revoked parole and ordered return to DYS with a 90-day minimum term.
- The judgment entered a 90-day minimum term and included a requirement of appropriate counseling; I.M. appealed challenging the length and guardian ad litem requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Guardian ad litem required at revocation hearing | I.M. lacked GAL due to potential parent-child conflict | No substantial conflict; guardian not required at revocation hearing | Guardian ad litem not required; court did not abuse discretion |
| Minimum term of 90 days for DYS commitment after parole revocation | 93-day minimum term exceeds statutory limit; proper is 30 days | 90 days permissible under 5139.52(F) | Remanded to remove language imposing a 90-day minimum; 30-day minimum applies |
| Plain error review of lack of representation at revocation hearing | Plain error due to lack of counsel at revocation | Waiver and voluntariness of waiver evident; no plain error | Plain error found; first assignment sustained in part leading to remand for modified judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Sappington, 123 Ohio App.3d 448, 704 N.E.2d 339 (2d Dist. 1997) (reversible error for failing to appoint GAL when potential conflict exists between parent and child)
- In re Spradlin, 140 Ohio App.3d 402, 474 N.E.2d 877 (4th Dist. 2000) (appointing GAL where conflict or interest may affect child’s interests)
- In re K.J.F., 2004-Ohio-263 ((2d Dist. 2004)) (strong conflict between parent and child requires GAL; abuse of discretion for failure to appoint)
- In re A.N., 2012-Ohio-1789 ((11th Dist. 2012)) (disposition limits and interpretation of 5139.52(F) timelines)
- In re T.K., 2012-Ohio-906 ((9th Dist. 2012)) (plain error review when unobjected revocation length exceeds 30 days)