In re J.W.
2013 Ohio 4368
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Mother (April W.) is the natural mother of three children removed in Feb. 2010 after CSB filed dependency/neglect complaints; she had a history of untreated mental illness and a prior multi-year removal.
- Mother stipulated that she had serious, untreated psychiatric problems and the children were adjudicated neglected/dependent; CSB later moved for permanent custody.
- On Nov. 30, 2011 the juvenile court awarded permanent custody to CSB (mother did not appeal).
- In Feb. 2013 Mother filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate the permanent custody judgment, asserting changed circumstances (children not adopted as expected; Mother stabilized via counseling).
- Trial court denied the motion without a hearing for failure to allege operative facts warranting relief; Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (CSB) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek Civ.R. 60(B) relief from a permanent-custody judgment | Mother: As a party to the final judgment terminating her parental rights, she may seek Civ.R. 60(B) relief | CSB: Mother ceased to be a party post-judgment and lacks standing to attack post-judgment placement matters or the judgment | Held: Mother had standing to seek Civ.R. 60(B) relief because she was a party to the final judgment she sought to vacate |
| Whether changed circumstances (mother stabilization; children not adopted) justify relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(4) ("no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application") | Mother: Changed facts mean prospective enforcement is inequitable and warrant vacatur under (4) | CSB: Permanent custody judgment was final and did not have "prospective application" over Mother; no ongoing enforcement against Mother | Held: (4) inapplicable — permanent custody judgment was not "prospective" (it fully divested Mother of parental rights and required no continuing enforcement) |
| Whether changed circumstances justify relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) (catch-all) | Mother: Changed circumstances are "other reason" justifying relief under (5) | CSB: (5) is limited to extraordinary, substantial grounds (fraud on the court, judicial impropriety, etc.), not routine changed circumstances | Held: (5) inapplicable — ordinary post-judgment changes are insufficient; relief under (5) limited to extraordinary/unusual circumstances that undermine the judgment's legitimacy |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Henry, 61 Ohio St.2d 277 (Ohio 1980) (definition of final judgment for Civ.R. 60(B) purposes)
- Crouser v. Crouser, 39 Ohio St.3d 177 (Ohio 1988) (interpreting "no longer equitable" language in Civ.R. 60(B)(4) as tied to continued enforcement/prospective application)
- Doe v. Trumbull Cty. Children Servs. Bd., 28 Ohio St.3d 128 (Ohio 1986) (Civ.R. 60(B)(5) does not permit vacatur solely because controlling case law later changed)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (three-part test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)