2019 Ohio 465
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Juvenile court initially found the child dependent after an unruly complaint; the child was placed in Jackson County Department of Job and Family Services (JCDJFS) temporary custody.
- About eight months later JCDJFS moved to modify disposition to permanent custody, alleging neither parent could care for the child.
- JCDJFS sought personal service on the mother in Tennessee; one attempt went to the wrong county, a second request awaited return, and then JCDJFS filed for service by publication supported by a brief affidavit stating the mother’s address was unknown.
- A newspaper publication notice ran; the mother was nevertheless personally served three days before the hearing, but the return was filed 11 days after the hearing. The written notice personally served did not include statutorily required explanations about the consequence of permanent custody, right to counsel, or court contact for indigent counsel.
- The juvenile court granted permanent custody to JCDJFS, finding the mother had minimal contact and effectively abandoned the child. The mother appealed, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction and denial of due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (JCDJFS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mother received constitutionally adequate notice and opportunity to be heard before termination of parental rights | Notice by publication was defective because JCDJFS did not first attempt service by certified/registered mail and affidavit claiming address unknown was false (agency had mailed previously) | Service by publication was proper after personal-service attempts and database searches; personal service and publication satisfied due process | Reversed: notice and service procedures were deficient; mother was denied due process and court lacked jurisdiction to enter permanent-custody order |
| Whether the affidavit supporting publication showed reasonable diligence to ascertain mother’s address | Agency’s affidavit was insufficient—caseworker had previously mailed the mother and received a phone call, indicating address was known | Agency relied on process-server returns and database searches; publication was appropriate when address could not be found | Held against agency: evidence showed address had been ascertained and statute required personal or certified/registered service, not publication |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (recognition of parents’ fundamental liberty interest in childrearing)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (parental rights are fundamental; heightened procedural protections required before termination)
- In re B.C., 141 Ohio St.3d 55 (Ohio statutory protections ensure opportunity to participate in termination proceedings)
- In re Thompkins, 115 Ohio St.3d 409 (due-process notice requires attempts at actual notice; reasonable diligence standard explained)
- Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161 (clarifies scope of "attempt to provide actual notice" requirement)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (notice must be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties)
- In re Frizl, 152 Ohio St. 164 (juvenile courts must strictly follow statutory notice rules before converting temporary to permanent custody)
- In re A.G., 139 Ohio St.3d 572 (reasonably calculated means under all circumstances; statutory notice requirements analyzed)