2019 Ohio 3716
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- BCCS filed dependency complaints (May 2016) after two young children were found unsupervised outside a home where mother and her boyfriend were unconscious and drug paraphernalia was present. Father had allegations of domestic violence and drug use.
- Parents stipulated to dependency (Aug. 2016) and entered reunification case plans but made little progress over ~2 years; both repeatedly tested positive for drugs and were periodically incarcerated.
- In Dec. 2017 the agency suspended Father’s visits after erratic behavior, admissions of withdrawal, treatment nonattendance, failure to provide screens, and positive tests; court required Father to pass three random drug screens before resuming visits.
- Grandparents received temporary custody via ex parte order and interstate-compact approval; Father did not object to placement but sought telephone/video contact without drug-screen condition.
- Father missed scheduled review hearings (Feb. and Apr. 2018); at the April hearing (Father incarcerated and absent) the magistrate awarded legal custody to grandparents; father later objected on grounds the grandparents had not filed a motion and he lacked notice.
- Juvenile court adopted the magistrate’s decision; on appeal the Twelfth District affirmed, finding waiver/plain-error rules and adequate procedural notice under due process principles.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Agency/Grandparents/Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court could grant legal custody without a written motion by grandparents | Court erred because statute and Juvenile Rules require a written motion; Father lacked notice that legal custody would be sought | Father waived the objection by not raising it at hearing; review limited to plain error which is not shown | Court: Issue waived; even assuming procedural error, it was not civil plain error and did not warrant reversal |
| Whether Father was denied procedural due process for lack of notice that legal custody could be awarded at the April hearing | Father lacked adequate notice and thus was deprived of his parental liberty interest | Father received constitutionally adequate notice (prior hearings, filings, caseworker contact, repeated warnings); father failed to appear or communicate | Court: Due process satisfied; Father had actual and constructive notice and counsel was present; no denial of procedural due process |
Key Cases Cited
- Gable v. Gates Mills, 103 Ohio St.3d 449 (2004) (civil plain-error doctrine applies only in extremely rare, exceptional cases)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997) (plain-error standard in civil cases)
- Schade v. Carnegie Body Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 207 (1982) (plain error affects public confidence in judicial proceedings)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (parents hold a fundamental liberty interest in custody of children; fair procedures required)
- In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (1990) (Ohio recognizes parental liberty interest)
- In re Thompkins, 115 Ohio St.3d 409 (2007) (state must attempt to provide actual notice; means reasonably calculated to inform)
- Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161 (2002) (due process does not require heroic efforts to give actual notice)
- Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (notice must be reasonably calculated to inform interested parties)
- In re C.R., 108 Ohio St.3d 369 (2006) (award of legal custody does not divest parents of residual parental rights)