2018 Ohio 244
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- J.B. born premature on 10/10/15; Mother has cognitive delays and limited local support; Father was incarcerated. CSB obtained emergency temporary custody at hospital discharge and Mother stipulated to dependency.
- Juvenile court placed J.B. in CSB temporary custody and adopted the agency’s case plan. Mother engaged but struggled to demonstrate sustained parenting skills.
- CSB filed a motion for permanent custody ~10.5 months after the complaint; that first motion did not allege the statutory “12 of 22” ground. The permanent-custody hearing was repeatedly continued.
- While the first motion remained pending and undecided, CSB filed a second motion alleging for the first time the child had been in temporary custody 12 of a consecutive 22 months. CSB did not withdraw or amend the first motion, nor was the first motion disposed.
- The juvenile court granted CSB permanent custody, relying in part on a finding that J.B. had been in CSB custody for 12 of 22 months. Parents appealed. The appellate court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (CSB) | Defendant's Argument (Parents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CSB could file a second permanent-custody motion alleging "12 of 22" months while an earlier motion remained pending | CSB argued passage of time justified filing a subsequent motion asserting the newly satisfied "12 of 22" ground | Parents argued the agency lacked authority to add new "12 of 22" grounds after filing an initial motion that did not—and could not—allege them | Court held agency may not file a subsequent motion alleging "12 of 22" grounds when an earlier motion remains pending and did not allege those grounds; such a tactic violates statutory intent and due process; reversal required |
| Whether the permanent-custody award was supported by clear and convincing evidence | CSB argued evidence supported termination and best-interest findings (alternative prongs were asserted) | Parents contended the ruling was not supported by clear and convincing evidence and was against the manifest weight | Court declined to decide on the merits because the erroneous reliance on the improper "12 of 22" allegation required reversal; remaining claims rendered moot |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (Sup. Ct. Ohio 2004) ("12 of 22" period must exist at time motion is filed; passage of time after filing does not count)
- In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (Ohio 1996) (clarifies two-prong permanent custody test under R.C. 2151.414)
- In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46 (Ohio 1997) (emphasizes procedural and substantive protections when the state seeks to terminate parental rights)