2016 Ohio 7574
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Child K.P. (born 2014) and sibling A.M. were placed in FCCS temporary custody and with the same foster parents after findings of dependency/neglect; parents A.P. and appellant J.P. lived out of state and did not appear at the permanent-custody hearing.
- FCCS moved for permanent custody to the foster parents; notice to appellant was by publication after he could not be located.
- A magistrate held an informal hearing on June 24, 2015, denied a continuance requested by appellant's counsel, and awarded permanent custody to the foster parents.
- Both parents filed objections; the juvenile court held an objections hearing, adopted the magistrate’s decision, cited both de novo and appellate standards, and affirmed permanent custody.
- Appellant appealed, arguing the juvenile court applied the incorrect standard of review (deferential/appellate standards) instead of the de novo independent review required by Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(d) and Civ.R. 53.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court applied the correct standard when ruling on objections to the magistrate's decision | Appellant (J.P.): trial court applied appellate/deferential standards (abuse of discretion/manifest weight) instead of performing the required independent de novo review of objected matters | Trial court (implicit): its language reflected concurrence with magistrate and it cited the correct standard elsewhere; any deferential language was not prejudicial | Court held juvenile court erred by repeatedly applying appellate standards and deferring to magistrate; reversed and remanded for de novo review |
| Whether the denial of a continuance and award of permanent custody were properly reviewed | Appellant: trial court improperly reviewed magistrate's denial of continuance under abuse-of-discretion instead of independently reassessing the record | Trial court: applied abuse-of-discretion standard (citing precedent on continuances) and found no abuse | Court held trial court improperly deferred on the continuance issue as well; required independent review on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Hartt v. Munobe, 67 Ohio St.3d 3 (Ohio 1993) (discusses standards and presumptions applicable to review of magistrate decisions)
- In re Brofford, 83 Ohio App.3d 869 (10th Dist. 1992) (describes manifest-weight/appellate review standard for juvenile custody appeals)
- Jones v. Smith, 187 Ohio App.3d 145 (4th Dist. 2010) (trial court must independently review magistrate determinations and not apply an appellate deferential standard)